D.H. Lawrence's Short Stories Thread [Archive] - Page 5

Virgil

02-15-2008, 10:55 PM

I just realized the final section is rather long. So let's break it up in two parts. Here's what i consider the first part, reaching a climax with the woman closing herself off.

After a time she heard the hard tread of her husband on the floor below, and, without herself changing, she registered his movement. She heard his rather disconsolate footsteps go out again, then his voice speaking, answering, growing cheery, and his solid tread drawing near.

He entered, ruddy, rather pleased, an air of complacency about his alert figure. She moved stiffly. He faltered in his approach.

"What's the matter?" he asked a tinge of impatience in his voice. "Aren't you feeling well?"

This was torture to her.

"Quite," she replied.

His brown eyes became puzzled and angry.

"What is the matter?" he said.

"Nothing."

He took a few strides, and stood obstinately, looking out of the window.

"Have you run up against anybody?" he asked.

"Nobody who knows me," she said.

His hands began to twitch. It exasperated him, that she was no more sensible of him than if he did not exist. Turning on her at length, driven, he asked:

"Something has upset you hasn't it?"

"No, why?" she said neutral. He did not exist for her, except as an irritant.

His anger rose, filling the veins in his throat.

"It seems like it," he said, making an effort not to show his anger, because there seemed no reason for it. He went away downstairs. She sat still on the bed, and with the residue of feeling left to her, she disliked him because he tormented her. The time went by. She could smell the dinner being served, the smoke of her husband's pipe from the garden. But she could not move. She had no being. There was a tinkle of the bell. She heard him come indoors. And then he mounted the stairs again. At every step her heart grew tight in her. He opened the door.

"Dinner is on the table," he said.

It was difficult for her to endure his presence, for he would interfere with her. She could not recover her life. She rose stiffly and went down. She could neither eat nor talk during the meal. She sat absent, torn, without any being of her own. He tried to go on as if nothing were the matter. But at last he became silent with fury. As soon as it was possible, she went upstairs again, and locked the bedroom door. She must be alone. He went with his pipe into the garden. All his suppressed anger against her who held herself superior to him filled and blackened his heart. Though he had not know it, yet he had never really won her, she had never loved him. She had taken him on sufference. This had foiled him. He was only a labouring electrician in the mine, she was superior to him. He had always given way to her. But all the while, the injury and ignominy had been working in his soul because she did not hold him seriously. And now all his rage came up against her.

He turned and went indoors. The third time, she heard him mounting the stairs. Her heart stood still. He turned the catch and pushed the door--it was locked. He tried it again, harder. Her heart was standing still.

"Have you fastened the door?" he asked quietly, because of the landlady.

"Yes. Wait a minute."

She rose and turned the lock, afraid he would burst it. She felt hatred towards him, because he did not leave her free. He entered, his pipe between his teeth, and she returned to her old position on the bed. He closed the door and stood with his back to it.

"What's the matter?" he asked determinedly.

She was sick with him. She could not look at him.

"Can't you leave me alone?" she replied, averting her face from him.

He looked at her quickly, fully, wincing with ignominy. Then he seemed to consider for a moment.

"There's something up with you, isn't there?" he asked definitely.

"Yes," she said, "but that's no reason why you should torment me."

"I don't torment you. What's the matter?"

"Why should you know?" she cried, in hate and desperation.

Something snapped. He started and caught his pipe as it fell from his mouth. Then he pushed forward the bitten-off mouth-piece with his tongue, took it from off his lips, and looked at it. Then he put out his pipe, and brushed the ash from his waistcoat. After which he raised his head.

"I want to know," he said. His face was greyish pale, and set uglily.

Neither looked at the other. She knew he was fired now. His heart was pounding heavily. She hated him, but she could not withstand him. Suddenly she lifted her head and turned on him.

"What right have you to know?" she asked.

He looked at her. She felt a pang of surprise for his tortured eyes and his fixed face. But her heart hardened swiftly. She had never loved him. She did not love him now.

It's an interesting little dance that the two perform here. She snubs him, irritated with his presence, and he with every turn gets angrier and angrier. Here again:

His hands began to twitch. It exasperated him, that she was no more sensible of him than if he did not exist. Turning on her at length, driven, he asked:

"Something has upset you hasn't it?"

"No, why?" she said neutral. He did not exist for her, except as an irritant.

His anger rose, filling the veins in his throat.
Interesting about the hands. Similar to her old lover. She really does treat him like dirt. The husband then goes off to prepare dinner and returns to let her know it's ready.

The time went by. She could smell the dinner being served, the smoke of her husband's pipe from the garden. But she could not move. She had no being.
Her self, her ego, is in a state of chaos. She has no being. She has been shaken to the core. But her husband gets in the way:

"Dinner is on the table," he said.

It was difficult for her to endure his presence, for he would interfere with her. She could not recover her life. She rose stiffly and went down. She could neither eat nor talk during the meal. She sat absent, torn, without any being of her own. He tried to go on as if nothing were the matter. But at last he became silent with fury. As soon as it was possible, she went upstairs again, and locked the bedroom door. She must be alone.
The schism between the two is impossible to breech. They are very separate beings. It would be an understatement to say that they don't have a true marriage. Interesting how Lawrence constructs this paragraph. The first half is from the point of view of the woman. Without starting a new paragraph, the point of view shifts to the man. Here's the second half of the paragraph:

He went with his pipe into the garden. All his suppressed anger against her who held herself superior to him filled and blackened his heart. Though he had not know it, yet he had never really won her, she had never loved him. She had taken him on sufference. This had foiled him. He was only a labouring electrician in the mine, she was superior to him. He had always given way to her. But all the while, the injury and ignominy had been working in his soul because she did not hold him seriously. And now all his rage came up against her.
Here the class issue really comes out. Although I think this story is too short to fully elaborate on this theme (he does in The Rainbow) but I think the significance of the class differences is that it emphasizes a mental/cultural chasm between the two, something that a healthy marriage ultimately works out, so that over time the couple will share in mental outlook. This couple can't or at least haven't yet accomplished that. One suspects that they may not. After going away and coming back, he probes to see what the matter is:

"What's the matter?" he asked determinedly.

She was sick with him. She could not look at him.

"Can't you leave me alone?" she replied, averting her face from him.

He looked at her quickly, fully, wincing with ignominy. Then he seemed to consider for a moment.

"There's something up with you, isn't there?" he asked definitely.

"Yes," she said, "but that's no reason why you should torment me."

"I don't torment you. What's the matter?"

"Why should you know?" she cried, in hate and desperation.
"Why should you know?" she asks. She does not want to come together as husband and wife, but stay in her individual self. Her will is powerful and crystalizes her ego. After having lost her ego above (when she lacks being) she finds her ego through opposition to her husband. He blows up and she hardens even further:

"What right have you to know?" she asked.

He looked at her. She felt a pang of surprise for his tortured eyes and his fixed face. But her heart hardened swiftly. She had never loved him. She did not love him now.
Despite his pain, she hardens further, closes herself off in her ego, and acknowledges to herself that she never loved him.

She's a b***h I agree with DM, she's not a sympathetic character.

Janine

02-15-2008, 11:01 PM

Thank you Logos. And in the entire 1000 posts i don't recall getting snooty with anyone. Must be a rarity.

:lol: Yes, that is a 'rarity' Virgil! :lol: It's 'cause I am here and keep you in-line.;) :lol:

Hehe actually in this entire thread, I do not think at least as long as I have been here, anyone has gotten snooty with anybody and that is truly a first for me.

Dark Muse, :lol: Yeah, truly...and if they do get 'snooty' or 'snotty' they can just pack their bags and move on, don't you think? We run a nice respectable, peaceful thread here. I hope we can keep it that way. :) One thing I always try to keep in mind, is to pay attention to all the posts and all the posters. Everyone has something important to add, I believe. If I ever neglect anyone, please let me know. That can quickly be remedied.:p

Dark Muse

02-15-2008, 11:02 PM

Virgil you made some really great points here and pointed out some good ideas, nicely done, I really like your observations. Particuarly good job on pointing out the role of the class issue between the two of them. I had not in my first reading of the story really grasped that idea, other than the fact it did mention him as being a laboror and seemed to suggest she was better off than he.

Dark Muse

02-15-2008, 11:05 PM

Dark Muse, :lol: Yeah, truly...and if they do get 'snooty' or 'snotty' they can just pack their bags and move on, don't you think? We run a nice respectable, peaceful thread here. I hope we can keep it that way. :) One thing I always try to keep in mind, is to pay attention to all the posts and all the posters. Everyone has something important to add, I believe. If I ever neglect anyone, please let me know. That can quickly be remedied.:p

Hehe yes so true, not to name names but there is one discussion board on the Lit. forum, that it seems wheenver I try to post there, I just get my head snapped off.

Janine

02-15-2008, 11:10 PM

Oops sorry, Virgil, I didn't see you there. We must have been posting same time. I will have to read your post again. I am a little tired right now to answer it. Maybe later or maybe tomorrow. Good idea on splitting up the section into two parts since it is long. Yes, it is a like a dance of the wills I believe between the two or a tug of war. Lawrence and his wife experinced this sort of thing often themselves. I don't think there was this much of a breech ever but there certainly was their share of friction and issues to deal with.
I do think the woman is in a total state of chaos and she is acting out irrationally towards her husband. She can't seem to cope at all with any form of contact at the present with him.
I have to think more about what you wrote. Like I said I am kind of tired out right now. I need some down-time tonight. I second what Dark Muse said - you did a fine job posting here and expressing all of this. We have been discussing some of this but now it makes it even more clear.

Quark

02-16-2008, 01:31 AM

It's an interesting little dance that the two perform here. She snubs him, irritated with his presence, and he with every turn gets angrier and angrier. Here again:

Clearly, we sense the husband's will in this scene. We know he wants to "win" his wife in a way he's never been able to do. He's been irked repeatedly in this story by his distant wife, and now he finally confronts her about it. I don't think we see the same kind of strength and will from the wife, though:

She sat perfectly still, without any being. She only felt she might be sick, and it might be blood that was loose in her torn entrails. She sat perfectly still and passive.

But she could not move. She had no being.

She could not recover her life. She rose stiffly and went down. She could neither eat nor talk during the meal. She sat absent, torn, without any being of her own.

The only thing she wants is him to leave. There isn't the same kind of latent, hungry desire to conquer that seems to be fueling the husband. I don't think the revulsion she feels for her husband really constitutes an act of will; it's more of a feeling or impulse.

The schism between the two is impossible to breech. They are very separate beings. It would be an understatement to say that they don't have a true marriage. Interesting how Lawrence constructs this paragraph. The first half is from the point of view of the woman. Without starting a new paragraph, the point of view shifts to the man. Here's the second half of the paragraph:

That's a good observation. He does shift the focus in that part, and he shifts the tragic element towards the husband too. The last part we read was about a trapped wife, but Lawrence shifts the focus toward the jilted husband. Suddenly, he becomes the character we sympathize with.

Here the class issue really comes out. Although I think this story is too short to fully elaborate on this theme (he does in The Rainbow) but I think the significance of the class differences is that it emphasizes a mental/cultural chasm between the two, something that a healthy marriage ultimately works out, so that over time the couple will share in mental outlook. This couple can't or at least haven't yet accomplished that. One suspects that they may not. After going away and coming back, he probes to see what the matter is:

The class difference certainly makes the husband appear the victim. He becomes the lowly "laboring electrician" who gives generously only to be shunned by a haughty wife. For me, though, this didn't have much effect. This sympathetic husband was just too incongruous with the self-absorbed one we got in the opening. It's hard to imagine him being the dotting husband that we're told he is here. I understand that Lawrence is trying to make the story tragic for both lovers, but I think he does a much better job forming the wife than he does the husband.

She's a b***h I agree with DM, she's not a sympathetic character.

A bit harsh, maybe?

Dark Muse

02-16-2008, 01:33 AM

Hehe I don't think so. Virgil is right. She totally is

Quark

02-16-2008, 01:39 AM

Hehe I don't think so. Virgil is right. She totally is

I don't know. I was just objecting to the name-calling.

Dark Muse

02-16-2008, 01:42 AM

Even if she was a real person, she hardly seems like the type that would get her feelings hurt. Even so, her own actions would have brought it on.

Quark

02-16-2008, 01:46 AM

I think I'm going to let Janine and Virgil jump in here.

Janine

02-16-2008, 02:35 AM

Clearly, we sense the husband's will in this scene. We know he wants to "win" his wife in a way he's never been able to do. He's been irked repeatedly in this story by his distant wife, and now he finally confronts her about it. I don't think we see the same kind of strength and will from the wife, though:

Quark, good post. I agree with most you have written here. Oh no, we might have a war here - 2 against 2 - two wife haters and two husband haters!:lol: Truly though, I don't hate anyone. Let us not forget this is the most peaceful thread on Lit Net.;) Anyway, what you wrote here above soooo reminds me of Lawrence and his own wife. He often was wanting more attention from her. It is very clear when you read books, like his intimate travel novels, or the one I am reading now "Kangaroo", based, biographically, on Lawrence and Frieda's brief residence in Australia. It is interesting to me now to read this sort of 'tug of war' between the male and female in this story' because this is something quite prominent in the novel' I am now reading. I really do think Lawrence struggled with this. He wanted to be "Lord of the manor" - he said so himself, blantantly and his wife certainly fought tooth and nail against it; it was a battle of 'wills'. It is truly complicated, but I know exactly where Lawrence is coming from in this story. The woman needs her 'space' - I said that before and the man doesn't want to give her an inch, really. In the beginning, he is fretting about the time and that she is not there at his calling. It was like this with Lawrence at times (not all the time, mind you) and he struggled with this. I wonder if this was not born of the abnormally close relationship he had to his mother. There always seems to be this need and this pull towards the woman, as though she were his mother or substitute, and yet he had this fear the woman would overcome him...it is a strange position to be in.

The only thing she wants is him to leave. There isn't the same kind of latent, hungry desire to conquer that seems to be fueling the husband. I don't think the revulsion she feels for her husband really constitutes an act of will; it's more of a feeling or impulse.

She does - this is why I say 'space'....everyone deserves their space at times. Too much togetherness can be smothering.

That's a good observation. He does shift the focus in that part, and he shifts the tragic element towards the husband too. The last part we read was about a trapped wife, but Lawrence shifts the focus toward the jilted husband. Suddenly, he becomes the character we sympathize with.

Interesting to think about.

The class difference certainly makes the husband appear the victim. He becomes the lowly "laboring electrician" who gives generously only to be shunned by a haughty wife. For me, though, this didn't have much effect. This sympathetic husband was just too incongruous with the self-absorbed one we got in the opening. It's hard to imagine him being the dotting husband that we're told he is here. I understand that Lawrence is trying to make the story tragic for both lovers, but I think he does a much better job forming the wife than he does the husband.

I agree with this...and...

A bit harsh, maybe?

this, too... I also. don't like labeling or name calling. such as this. Sorry, Virgil, but really I don't. I think the woman has more dimension, than just being called a b*****? What point does that serve. Gee, maybe we spoke too soon and we will all duke it out now on this issue.;)

Dark Muse

02-16-2008, 02:42 AM

I really don't see any harm in calling a fictional char names. Hehe you two talk as if she were a real person

Janine

02-16-2008, 04:05 AM

I really don't see any harm in calling a fictional char names. Hehe you two talk as if she were a real person

Dark Muse, I don't think that is the point. The point is by using words like that one tends to generalise or type a person. I don't think Lawrence would have intended any of this characters to be type-cast. I can't think of one from his novels that is all good or all bad - they are just humans with flaws and strenths, struggles, etc. Lawrence very much identified with the human condition. This is all I was saying - to boil them down to one word I feel is totally unfair, even if they are just characters; they represent people or the idea of a person.

Virgil

02-16-2008, 12:13 PM

:lol: Yes, that is a 'rarity' Virgil! :lol: It's 'cause I am here and keep you in-line.;) :lol:

:blush: Yes, you're the mommy figure. ;)

Hehe yes so true, not to name names but there is one discussion board on the Lit. forum, that it seems wheenver I try to post there, I just get my head snapped off.
Which thread is that DM?

Dark Muse

02-16-2008, 12:25 PM

Which thread is that DM?

The Jane Eyre forum. I swear those people take things too seriously and they are very millitant about thier views.

Virgil

02-16-2008, 12:31 PM

Clearly, we sense the husband's will in this scene. We know he wants to "win" his wife in a way he's never been able to do. He's been irked repeatedly in this story by his distant wife, and now he finally confronts her about it. I don't think we see the same kind of strength and will from the wife, though:

The only thing she wants is him to leave. There isn't the same kind of latent, hungry desire to conquer that seems to be fueling the husband. I don't think the revulsion she feels for her husband really constitutes an act of will; it's more of a feeling or impulse.

Hmm interesting. Maybe it's because she's conquored him throughout the whole marriage. But I disagree that her will isn't strong.

Suddenly, he becomes the character we sympathize with.
You and Janine seem to feel Lawrence is generating sympathy for the woman in the story. I don't really see it. She acts superior to her husband from beginning to end, and in the middle she's a day dream idealist at best. In what respect are we supposed to sympathize with her? Because her old love fell apart and now he's insane and so they can't get back together? What's so sympathetic about that? Why is she married now if she never loved her husband and wants to go back to her old love? On what grounds can any sympathy be felt for her? I think Lawrence is consciously making the woman out to be detestable. Even biographically the husband character is Lawrence.

The class difference certainly makes the husband appear the victim. He becomes the lowly "laboring electrician" who gives generously only to be shunned by a haughty wife. For me, though, this didn't have much effect. This sympathetic husband was just too incongruous with the self-absorbed one we got in the opening.
Was he self absorbed in the beginning? I just re-read that. Interesting, his looking at himself in the mirror is similar to his wife day dreaming in the garden. But I don't see why that would make it incongruous. it was a moment in the mirror, not a fantasy of an old love.

It's hard to imagine him being the dotting husband that we're told he is here. I understand that Lawrence is trying to make the story tragic for both lovers, but I think he does a much better job forming the wife than he does the husband.
Well, he maks her dinner, attends her needs, and worries she is ill. Do you think he's acting? It seems sincere.

A bit harsh, maybe?
Hehe, Lawrence did not care for uppity women. I think the word fits. :D

Dark Muse

02-16-2008, 12:39 PM

You and Janine seem to feel Lawrence is generating sympathy for the woman in the story. I don't really see it. She acts superior to her husband from beginning to end, and in the middle she's a day dream idealist at best. In what respect are we supposed to sympathize with her? Because her old love fell apart and now he's insane and so they can't get back together? What's so sympathetic about that? Why is she married now if she never loved her husband and wants to go back to her old love? On what grounds can any sympathy be felt for her? I think Lawrence is consciously making the woman out to be detestable. Even biographically the husband character is Lawrence.

Yes, it is the great mystery how she ended up with her husband, as it was not out of personal desire, or finicial need as it seems she would be perefectly able to support herself without him.

As I suggested before, I think she just wanted someone she could boss around, she intentionaly chose a man whom geniuenly cared for her, that she would have all the power over.

Yes, that is what I have said twoard the beginning, I do not think the fact that she is obcessed with her past makes her sympahtic, but rather instead it makes her immature.

Virgil

02-16-2008, 12:46 PM

Quark, good post. I agree with most you have written here. Oh no, we might have a war here - 2 against 2 - two wife haters and two husband haters!:lol:
:lol: Lawrence had a bit of woman hating in him. :D

Truly though, I don't hate anyone. Let us not forget this is the most peaceful thread on Lit Net.;) Anyway, what you wrote here above soooo reminds me of Lawrence and his own wife. He often was wanting more attention from her. It is very clear when you read books, like his intimate travel novels, or the one I am reading now "Kangaroo", based, biographically, on Lawrence and Frieda's brief residence in Australia. It is interesting to me now to read this sort of 'tug of war' between the male and female in this story' because this is something quite prominent in the novel' I am now reading. I really do think Lawrence struggled with this. He wanted to be "Lord of the manor" - he said so himself, blantantly and his wife certainly fought tooth and nail against it; it was a battle of 'wills'. It is truly complicated, but I know exactly where Lawrence is coming from in this story.
I think you've pointed out perfectly the biographical identifications in the story. And Lawrence did believe the man should be lord of the manor as you put it. The woman of the story is the type of woman Lawrenced blames for problems of the world. I know that's a big jump, and you don't get it in this story. But Lawrence believes that the psychological make up of people causes actions and events in the world and the psychology of the strong willed woman is what he blames for the world being screwed up. That's simplistic, but when you find a strong willed woman in a Lawrence short story, you ought to be suspicious.

The woman needs her 'space' - I said that before and the man doesn't want to give her an inch, really. In the beginning, he is fretting about the time and that she is not there at his calling. It was like this with Lawrence at times (not all the time, mind you) and he struggled with this. I wonder if this was not born of the abnormally close relationship he had to his mother. There always seems to be this need and this pull towards the woman, as though she were his mother or substitute, and yet he had this fear the woman would overcome him...it is a strange position to be in.
But the husband gives her her space. He lets her go off on her own all day, presumably not knowing that she was going to cheat on him (what would have happened if the old lover was not insane?), he lets her be in the bedroom while he makes dinner, and at every turn she sticks a stick in his side. She redicules him and acts so superior.

She does - this is why I say 'space'....everyone deserves their space at times. Too much togetherness can be smothering.
I'm afraid I don't really see this. There isn't that much togetherness. Where is the husband being sufficating? He comes home and makes dinner. One would expect to sit at a table and have dinner together. Actually all she had to say is, not tonight, I don't feel well. But she doesn't. She Lords over him like a queen, something we can assume happens repeatedly.

this, too... I also. don't like labeling or name calling. such as this. Sorry, Virgil, but really I don't. I think the woman has more dimension, than just being called a b*****? What point does that serve. Gee, maybe we spoke too soon and we will all duke it out now on this issue.;)
Well, I am Mad, Bad, and Dangerous to Know. :p :D

Virgil

02-16-2008, 12:50 PM

Yes, it is the great mystery how she ended up with her husband, as it was not out of personal desire, or finicial need as it seems she would be perefectly able to support herself without him.

As I suggested before, I think she just wanted someone she could boss around, she intentionaly chose a man whom geniuenly cared for her, that she would have all the power over.

Yes, that is what I have said twoard the beginning, I do not think the fact that she is obcessed with her past makes her sympahtic, but rather instead it makes her immature.

I don't know if immature is the right word, but certainly a b****. ;) We have nothing else to go by as to why she maried him, so i would have to assume you're right. She wants to feel powerful and she picked a physically small man in a social class below her.

Dark Muse

02-16-2008, 12:50 PM

But the husband gives her her space. He lets her go off on her own all day, presumably not knowing that she was going to cheat on him (what would have happened if the old lover was not insane?)

LOL that is exzactly what I said, at one point I brought up the question, what if she met her lover to find him both physicaly and mentally well?

Becasue I do not think she would have hesitated

I don't know if immature is the right word, but certainly a b****. ;) We have nothing else to go by as to why she maried him, so i would have to assume you're right. She wants to feel powerful and she picked a physically small man in a social class below her.

Well I won't repate myself, I talked about this at length tword the beginning of the thread, but at several points I thought the woman seemed child-like in her mentality and behavhor.

Janine

02-16-2008, 04:03 PM

:lol: Lawrence had a bit of woman hating in him. :D
This is really simplifying Lawrence's idea of women...seriously. I see what you are getting at but inside my own head I don't really truly believe this after reading all I have about Lawrence. I think it was like the old adage with him: "You can't live with them and you can't live without". Even women say that. I know I do! Lawrence was screwed up from his mother - I have heard him say it himself, in autobiographical texts. He knew the score. I was just reading some of his letters and he knew he had this flaw. I believe this inner 'torment' followed him his whole life, and manifested itself in many of his stories and novels, but there usually is this pull either way. As we said before, in the beginning, he is making us sympathise with the woman, and then more so towards the man, at the end.
I would be angry also, if someone asked me "You mean the whole hogger?" - somehow that phrase would make me angry, too - because it sounds so insensitive and crude. When she answers him, do you think she is truly being honest, or is it a way to lash back at him? I think this complicated interchange of words and even expressions between them is just that - complicated and cannot be boiled down into a few words or ideas. It never is easy to explain a fight or altercation between the sexes - such as husband and wife, or even two lovers. These altercations, no doubt, in Lawrence books and stories have been debated for ages. We can never come up with a definitive answer on this idea of Lawrence hating women. I don't think he did. In his own mother's case, there is so much to debate. One thing is certain - feelings were strong both ways - he adored his mother and at the same time feared her control over his life. This can't be simplified and so it remains one of the basic fascinating factors of Lawrence.

I think you've pointed out perfectly the biographical identifications in the story. And Lawrence did believe the man should be lord of the manor as you put it. The woman of the story is the type of woman Lawrenced blames for problems of the world. I know that's a big jump, and you don't get it in this story. But Lawrence believes that the psychological make up of people causes actions and events in the world and the psychology of the strong willed woman is what he blames for the world being screwed up. That's simplistic, but when you find a strong willed woman in a Lawrence short story, you ought to be suspicious.

Thanks, but truly it is not a 'simple' thing to analysis with Lawrence. He loved his wife dearly, but they often had to be appart and they both simmered at times. Frieda was very strong willed. I don't think that is correct at all; I don't believe he ever blamed the world for being screwed up by a strong willed woman. Let's fact it Lawrence was 'strong willed' himself! He had mixed feelings about women, even his close woman friends and he had tons of those. Read the letters! There is something about Lawrence that totally sympathises with women and taps into their inner psyches. It is never one way or the other, in his novels, that I can see. Nothing is black and white. I might want to post some excerpts about marriage from Kangaroo. I just read a whole section where the husband and wife - Richard (representing Lawrence) and Harriet (representing Frieda) were having much friction between them, and this was taken more from Richard's point of view on being married. You could read that and let me know what you think of his ideas. To me he is torn and in a turmoil about marriage, and yet it comes through loud and clear the two do love each other intensely. I might scan it, so give me some time.

But the husband gives her her space. He lets her go off on her own all day, presumably not knowing that she was going to cheat on him (what would have happened if the old lover was not insane?), he lets her be in the bedroom while he makes dinner, and at every turn she sticks a stick in his side. She redicules him and acts so superior.

I'm afraid I don't really see this. There isn't that much togetherness. Where is the husband being sufficating? He comes home and makes dinner. One would expect to sit at a table and have dinner together. Actually all she had to say is, not tonight, I don't feel well. But she doesn't. She Lords over him like a queen, something we can assume happens repeatedly.

In the beginning he is being so when he is persuming she will stick around with just him the whole day. I don't know what the rest of their marriage is like, or everyday how things are with them. He seems to want her attention and is annoyed when she is alone, even getting dressed or ready for the day. My god, women do need some time alone or to think without the husband wanting total togetherness. I know a couple just like this and the husband always demands the wife follow his time schedule and to be honest with you this marriage has a lot of strife and tension from this. The man does lord himself over the woman and she resents it. I can't help but see this is what is happening here.
Maybe later she is just demanding his letting her be alone - maybe she is saying it in a way makes you think she is a b*****. I don't really see this and like I said I think we should let this whole difference in opinion lay and forget it. We all seem to view the relationship different ways, maybe due to our own experiences which are playing into it.

Well, I am Mad, Bad, and Dangerous to Know. :p :D

Don't I know it!;) With all my pacifist pep-talks. :lol: What was that you said awhile back that you and I never had a fight on here; also that this was one thread you never had a fight on? ;) :lol: We better keep it that way - "Peaceful".

Dark Muse

02-16-2008, 04:37 PM

Maybe later she is just demanding his letting her be alone - maybe she is saying it in a way makes you think she is a b*****. I don't really see this and like I said I think we should let this whole difference in opinion lay and forget it. We all seem to view the relationship different ways, maybe due to our own experiences which are playing into it.

Yes I agree with that, I think this thread is starting to turn more into a debate of is the woman a b*****, or not, and moving away from acutal anylisis of the story itself.

By this point everyone knows how we all feel about the woman, and no one is going to change anyone's mind from that I don't think.

Janine

02-16-2008, 04:40 PM

Yes I agree with that, I think this thread is starting to turn more into a debate of is the woman a b*****, or not, and moving away from acutal anylisis of the story itself.

By this point everyone knows how we all feel about the woman, and no one is going to change anyone's mind from that I don't think.

Exactly! Well put, DM.
Besides this whole debate is starting to give me a headache.;) :lol:
Soon we will move onto another story - thank heaven for that!
For now let us all proceed, 'peacably'.....:)

Virgil

02-16-2008, 04:51 PM

Exactly! Well put, DM.
Besides this whole debate is starting to give me a headache.;) :lol:
Soon we will move onto another story - thank heaven for that!
For now let us all proceed, 'peacably'.....:)

This isn't really fighting, come on. We do seem to disagree on what Lawrence wants us to think of this woman. And yes, I don't think we're going to change our minds. But I'm not finished with this story yet. There's still the final part. I'll comment on that tomorrow.

But what do you make of this in the openning paragraph:

Then he rose and reflected on the oil-paintings that hung on the walls of the room, giving careful but hostile attention to "The Stag at Bay".
"The Stag at Bay" suggests to me a male-female schism, and one not favorable to the male. I do think this was intended to project the conflict of the story.

Janine

02-16-2008, 05:01 PM

This isn't really fighting, come on. We do seem to disagree on what Lawrence wants us to think of this woman. And yes, I don't think we're going to change our minds. But I'm not finished with this story yet. There's still the final part. I'll comment on that tomorrow.

:lol: We are not giving up on the story yet, silly. But we did discuss that quite extensively when you were absent. If you review the pages of posts, on this one story, you will see there are quite a few. Anyway, by your posting segments of the story, now we can look at different things or you might point out some brilliant ideas of your own. ;)

But what do you make of this in the openning paragraph:

"The Stag at Bay" suggests to me a male-female schism, and one not favorable to the male. I do think this was intended to project the conflict of the story.

Awhile back, we discussed that, but now I can't recall what we all said about the painting. I will have to review later on tonight. I am going out for now.

:lol: Stop giving me a headache! :lol: :D

Dark Muse

02-16-2008, 05:13 PM

Toward the begining I had brought up the painting and posted an image of it in the thread, and there was some discussion of it, and what it could possible reperesent, I can quote some of my thoughts on the painting after I go back and relocate them.

Dark Muse

02-16-2008, 05:17 PM

Here are my own coments in regaurds to the painting

I could see the woman being the stag, as the hounds in the picture could represent, either the past of the present which she is stuck between. Unable to go back to one, but unable to move forward into the other. Or the two men, the one whom holds her heart, but can no longer return her feelings, and the one that can be there for her but she is incapable of loving.

Virgil

02-16-2008, 05:20 PM

Just out of curriosity I looked up the painting that was referenced in the story.

This is the Stag at Bay
the artist is Sir Edwin Henry Landseer

http://www.irater.cz/data/historicke_obrazky/Stag-at-Bay.jpg

Oh I found DM. Thanks. Interesting. I think the title reflects more in the story than the actual painting. I was imagining a stag being b*t*hed at by a doe. :lol: :lol:

Dark Muse

02-16-2008, 05:31 PM

LOL oh you are bad

You know the other thing I noticed that I found somewhat interesting is when the husband looks to the painting, it says he stuided it with hostility.

Then he rose and refelcted on the oil-paintings that hung on the walls of the room, giving careful but hostile attention to "The Stag at Bay."

Janine

02-16-2008, 05:40 PM

Oh I found DM. Thanks. Interesting. I think the title reflects more in the story than the actual painting. I was imagining a stag being b*t*hed at by a doe. :lol: :lol:

Someone else posted this photo, back awhile ago, so this is a rerun, but that is ok - refresh our memories. Funny now that I look at it again, it looks kind of playful and not hostile at all. I really don't know what significance to place on the husband viewing it hostily. Doesn't really make sense to me.

Virgil

02-16-2008, 05:41 PM

:lol: We are not giving up on the story yet, silly. But we did discuss that quite extensively when you were absent. If you review the pages of posts, on this one story, you will see there are quite a few. Anyway, by your posting segments of the story, now we can look at different things or you might point out some brilliant ideas of your own. ;)

Awhile back, we discussed that, but now I can't recall what we all said about the painting. I will have to review later on tonight. I am going out for now.

:lol: Stop giving me a headache! :lol: :D
:lol: How are we giving you a headache? :p I'm sorry I wasn't involved in the early discussions.

LOL oh you are bad

You know the other thing I noticed that I found somewhat interesting is when the husband looks to the painting, it says he stuided it with hostility.
Oh I didn't really focus on the word "hostile." Good observation. This is not Lawrence at his most skillful. It seems like a young writer pointing at his themes. But he does make up for this with the rose garden scene and the climax between husband and wife. Those scenes are excellently crafted.

Virgil

02-16-2008, 05:43 PM

Someone else posted this photo, back awhile ago, so this is a rerun, but that is ok - refresh our memories. Funny now that I look at it again, it looks kind of playful and not hostile at all. I really don't know what significance to place on the husband viewing it hostily. Doesn't really make sense to me.

The significance is that the male deer, a stag, is being curtailed. It projects into the situation of the story, the husband is being curtailed.

Janine

02-16-2008, 05:55 PM

The significance is that the male deer, a stag, is being curtailed. It projects into the situation of the story, the husband is being curtailed.

By those cute little innocent looking playful doggies? Those could be your Brandy just wanting to have a fun time - teasing.:lol: I think they look quite harmless or do you think they are wolves? Still that stag does not look too scared to me, and there is no blood. Oh so they are just detaining him or curtailing him - ok.....as they say, all women keep a man waiting....isn't it fashionable to be late - 'fashionably late' they call it?

Virgil

02-16-2008, 06:04 PM

By those cute little innocent looking playful doggies? Those could be your Brandy just wanting to have a fun time - teasing.:lol: I think they look quite harmless or do you think they are wolves? Still that stag does not look too scared to me, and there is no blood. Oh so they are just detaining him or curtailing him - ok.....as they say, all women keep a man waiting....isn't it fashionable to be late - 'fashionably late' they call it?

:lol: I take them as wolves, but they don't look so fiersome.

Janine

02-16-2008, 06:19 PM

:lol: I take them as wolves, but they don't look so fiersome.

Maybe he turned away since they were not fearcesome, enough.;) :lol:

fearsome, firseome - hey, how do you spell that anyway?

Here is an interesting site I just found on the painting and others apparently dealing with the same subject. I didn't yet read it all but it might shed some light on this image in the story and it's significance.

http://www.supernaturale.com/articles.html?id=163

Dark Muse

02-16-2008, 06:21 PM

Janine

02-16-2008, 11:09 PM

Though they may not look fiersome, I do not think the intent of the picture is to make it playful, I think it is suppose to be a hunting scene. The dogs/wolves I think are intended to be either wolves or they look like they might be staghounds which were bred to be hunting dogs.

Hey DM, lighten-up. I was just teasing Virgil, when I said they looked playful. Who really knows what the painting means? We would have to ask the artist, I think.

Quark

02-17-2008, 01:12 AM

Wow, I leave for a day and the conversation devolves into a quarrel over deer and wolves (or dogs?). I don't know about you guys sometimes. I'll have to go back over the posts, and see what got us talking about dogs (wolves?).

Dark Muse

02-17-2008, 01:17 AM

LOL Virigil brought up the painting we discussed at the begining, and that started the conversation about wolves/dogs

Janine

02-17-2008, 01:28 AM

hahahah :lol: I think maybe it is almost time to wrap this one up and proceed to a new story. Yes, when the discussion has disgenerated to 'dogs and wolves' we may have a problem. I think Virgil is still determined to discuss the last part so I am not sure why we went back to that painting again. You just never know what to expect in this unpredictable thread, do you? :lol:

Dark Muse

02-17-2008, 02:02 AM

LOL no you don't

Janine

02-17-2008, 02:04 AM

Keeps it exciting and everyone awake! :lol:

Quark

02-17-2008, 02:14 PM

LOL Virigil brought up the painting we discussed at the begining, and that started the conversation about wolves/dogs

Oh, yeah, now I remember the painting. I think it does foreshadow the conflict that husband and wife are about to have. I didn't even notice it when I was reading. I thought his glancing at the painting was just supposed to indicate the distracted, somewhat anxious, state he's in at the beginning of the story. He's trying to read the paper but he keeps glancing up, and then he has to walk around the room. He seems a bit nervous. I imagined him looking at the painting as part of this, but when I look at the painting it's pretty clear that it's foreshadowing something specific.

Oh I found DM. Thanks. Interesting. I think the title reflects more in the story than the actual painting. I was imagining a stag being b*t*hed at by a doe. :lol: :lol:

Funny. How do you get that from "Stag at Bay?" I think the painting you're thinking of is called "Stag Trying to Watch a Football Game."

hahahah :lol: I think maybe it is almost time to wrap this one up and proceed to a new story. Yes, when the discussion has disgenerated to 'dogs and wolves' we may have a problem. I think Virgil is still determined to discuss the last part so I am not sure why we went back to that painting again. You just never know what to expect in this unpredictable thread, do you? :lol:

We still have two weeks of February left. Do you want to read another story or should we stop for a while? And, we haven't talked about the end of the story, yet, so I think we could still continue with this one if we wanted to.

Janine

02-17-2008, 04:10 PM

Oh, yeah, now I remember the painting. I think it does foreshadow the conflict that husband and wife are about to have. I didn't even notice it when I was reading. I thought his glancing at the painting was just supposed to indicate the distracted, somewhat anxious, state he's in at the beginning of the story. He's trying to read the paper but he keeps glancing up, and then he has to walk around the room. He seems a bit nervous. I imagined him looking at the painting as part of this, but when I look at the painting it's pretty clear that it's foreshadowing something specific.

Yes, it seems to 'foreshadow' events to come and their altercation.

Funny. How do you get that from "Stag at Bay?" I think the painting you're thinking of is called "Stag Trying to Watch a Football Game."
:lol: :lol: :lol:

We still have two weeks of February left. Do you want to read another story or should we stop for a while? And, we haven't talked about the end of the story, yet, so I think we could still continue with this one if we wanted to.

Gee we do, don't we? But they will go quickly, and soon there is my birthday party on Lit Net coming up....:rolleyes::lol: are you all coming? I would say carry on with this story for the time being - hey, where is Virgil to post the next part? Hopefully, he will show up in the next few days. I am in no hurry, since I am somewhat active now in "Tale of Two Cities" discussion; also trying to listen to "The Name of the Rose" audiotapes; and don't forget - we are still preparing the Chekhov thread for revival. Hey, Quark, go read some Cheky short stories and see which ones you like....hopefully ones on my list....;) In the meantime, and in my 'sparetime' (yeah right) :lol:, I will review some Lawrence tales and see what we might all find fascinating to talk about next month.

Virgil

02-17-2008, 10:16 PM

Ok, ok, here's the last part:

But suddenly she lifted her head again swiftly, like a thing that tries to get free. She wanted to be free of it. It was not him so much, but it, something she had put on herself, that bound her so horribly. And having put the bond on herself, it was hardest to take it off. But now she hated everything and felt destructive. He stood with his back to the door, fixed, as if he would oppose her eternally, till she was extinguished. She looked at him. Her eyes were cold and hostile. His workman's hands spread on the panels of the door behind him.

"You know I used to live here?" she began, in a hard voice, as if wilfully to wound him. He braced himself against her, and nodded.

"Well, I was companion to Miss Birch of Torril Hall--she and the rector were friends, and Archie was the rector's son." There was a pause. He listened without knowing what was happening. He stared at his wife. She was squatted in her white dress on the bed, carefully folding and re-folding the hem of her skirt. Her voice was full of hostility.

"He was an officer--a sub-lieutenant--then he quarrelled with his colonel and came out of the army. At any rate"--she plucked at her skirt hem, her husband stood motionless, watching her movements which filled his veins with madness--"he was awfully fond of me, and I was of him--awfully."

"How old was he?" asked the husband.

"When--when I first knew him? Or when he went away?--"

"When you first knew him."

"When I first knew him, he was twenty-six--now--he's thirty-one-- nearly thirty-two--because I'm twenty-nine, and he is nearly three years older--"

She lifted her head and looked at the opposite wall.

"And what then?" said her husband.

She hardened herself, and said callously:

"We were as good as engaged for nearly a year, though nobody knew-- at least--they talked--but--it wasn't open. Then he went away--"

"He chucked you?" said the husband brutally, wanting to hurt her into contact with himself. Her heart rose wildly with rage. Then "Yes", she said, to anger him. He shifted from one foot to the other, giving a "Ph!" of rage. There was silence for a time.

"Then," she resumed, her pain giving a mocking note to her words, "he suddenly went out to fight in Africa, and almost the very day I first met you, I heard from Miss Birch he'd got sunstroke--and two months after, that he was dead--"

"That was before you took on with me?" said the husband.

There was no answer. Neither spoke for a time. He had not understood. His eyes were contracted uglily.

"So you've been looking at your old courting places!" he said. "That was what you wanted to go out by yourself for this morning."

Still she did not answer him anything. He went away from the door to the window. He stood with his hands behind him, his back to her. She looked at him. His hands seemed gross to her, the back of his head paltry.

At length, almost against his will, he turned round, asking:

"How long were you carrying on with him?"

"What do you mean?" she replied coldly.

"I mean how long were you carrying on with him?"

She lifted her head, averting her face from him. She refused to answer. Then she said:

"I don't know what you mean, by carrying on. I loved him from the first days I met him--two months after I went to stay with Miss Birch."

"And do you reckon he loved you?" he jeered.

"I know he did."

"How do you know, if he'd have no more to do with you?"

There was a long silence of hate and suffering.

"And how far did it go between you?" he asked at length, in a frightened, stiff voice.

"I hate your not-straightforward questions," she cried, beside herself with his baiting. "We loved each other, and we were lovers--we were. I don't care what you think: what have you got to do with it? We were lovers before ever I knew you--"

"Lovers--lovers," he said, white with fury. "You mean you had your fling with an army man, and then came to me to marry you when you'd done--"

She sat swallowing her bitterness. There was a long pause.

"Do you mean to say you used to go--the whole hogger?" he asked, still incredulous.

"Why, what else do you think I mean?" she cried brutally.

He shrank, and became white, impersonal. There was a long, paralysed silence. He seemed to have gone small.

"You never thought to tell me all this before I married you," he said, with bitter irony, at last.

"You never asked me," she replied.

"I never thought there was any need."

"Well, then, you should think."

He stood with expressionless, almost childlike set face, revolving many thoughts, whilst his heart was mad with anguish.

Suddenly she added:

"And I saw him today," she said. "He is not dead, he's mad."

Her husband looked at her, startled.

"Mad!' he said involuntarily.

"A lunatic," she said. It almost cost her her reason to utter the word. There was a pause.

"Did he know you?" asked the husband in a small voice.

"No," she said.

He stood and looked at her. At last he had learned the width of the breach between them. She still squatted on the bed. He could not go near her. It would be violation to each of them to be brought into contact with the other. The thing must work itself out. They were both shocked so much, they were impersonal, and no longer hated each other. After some minutes he left her and went out.

The very first word here is very important. After she internally acknowledges that she never loved him, Lawrence says, "But suddenly she lifted her head again swiftly, like a thing that tries to get free." For you writers out there, arguably the most powerful word that a writer has is the word, "but." I almost always use it to start a sentence with it, and therefore capitalized. I almost never use it as a conjunction. And neither did Lawrence here. It signals a shift, a translition. Having reached a point of powerful opposition to her husband, she softens. Here's the rest of what Lawrence says:

But suddenly she lifted her head again swiftly, like a thing that tries to get free. She wanted to be free of it. It was not him so much, but it, something she had put on herself, that bound her so horribly. And having put the bond on herself, it was hardest to take it off. But now she hated everything and felt destructive. He stood with his back to the door, fixed, as if he would oppose her eternally, till she was extinguished. She looked at him. Her eyes were cold and hostile. His workman's hands spread on the panels of the door behind him.
I think she realizes here that it's not the husband to blame, but the weight of reality, the weight of the circumstances. And then she goes on to tell him what happened.

"You know I used to live here?" she began, in a hard voice, as if wilfully to wound him. He braced himself against her, and nodded.

"Well, I was companion to Miss Birch of Torril Hall--she and the rector were friends, and Archie was the rector's son." There was a pause. He listened without knowing what was happening. He stared at his wife. She was squatted in her white dress on the bed, carefully folding and re-folding the hem of her skirt. Her voice was full of hostility.
Now here is a question. Why does she tell him? Is it to be honest? Bring it out in the open? Or to destroy him with the informaton? I'm somewhat torn here. I would think it would be to bring it out in the open, but Lawrence says she speaks with hostility and to "wilfully wound him." Perhaps Lawrence wants it to be both simultaneously, but I think if he does it doesn't quite come through.

And the husband, who has reached a saturation point in being badly treated, fights back to destroy her:
"
He chucked you?" said the husband brutally, wanting to hurt her into contact with himself. Her heart rose wildly with rage. Then "Yes", she said, to anger him. He shifted from one foot to the other, giving a "Ph!" of rage. There was silence for a time.
They are trying to destroy the other with points. And he probes to find out the extent of the relationship.

"How do you know, if he'd have no more to do with you?"

There was a long silence of hate and suffering.

"And how far did it go between you?" he asked at length, in a frightened, stiff voice.

"I hate your not-straightforward questions," she cried, beside herself with his baiting. "We loved each other, and we were lovers--we were. I don't care what you think: what have you got to do with it? We were lovers before ever I knew you--"

"Lovers--lovers," he said, white with fury. "You mean you had your fling with an army man, and then came to me to marry you when you'd done--"

She sat swallowing her bitterness. There was a long pause.

"Do you mean to say you used to go--the whole hogger?" he asked, still incredulous.
:lol: I assume "the whole hogger" means sexual intercourse. I know Janine hated him for using that word. But there is good justification for a brutal word. It's bringing the raw reality, in its most gritty realistic terms, into consciousness. It dispells all the dreamy illusions that the woman was under. I think that's the actual climax of the story. Notice how things change.

"Why, what else do you think I mean?" she cried brutally.

He shrank, and became white, impersonal. There was a long, paralysed silence. He seemed to have gone small.

"You never thought to tell me all this before I married you," he said, with bitter irony, at last.

"You never asked me," she replied.

"I never thought there was any need."

"Well, then, you should think."

He stood with expressionless, almost childlike set face, revolving many thoughts, whilst his heart was mad with anguish.
He shrinks and feels small. Why? I think he too realizes the reality. He too has been in an idealized fantasy, to think that his wife didn't exist before they met and have a life before him. Notice the exchange afterward:

"You never thought to tell me all this before I married you," he said, with bitter irony, at last.

"You never asked me," she replied.

"I never thought there was any need."

"Well, then, you should think."
They have not been open from the beginning. And notice he now doesn't go beserk when she then tells him that she actually met him today. The worst has passed and now that they've finally been honest with each other they can move on.

He stood and looked at her. At last he had learned the width of the breach between them. She still squatted on the bed. He could not go near her. It would be violation to each of them to be brought into contact with the other. The thing must work itself out. They were both shocked so much, they were impersonal, and no longer hated each other. After some minutes he left her and went out.
"At last he had learned the width of the breech between them." "They were both shocked so much, they were impersonal, and no longer hated each other." They have passed through this catharitic experience, and so now they can start toward a real marriage.

Despite some poorly written spots, a brilliant conclusion. A fine story.

Dark Muse

02-17-2008, 11:02 PM

Janine

02-17-2008, 11:23 PM

Ok, ok, here's the last part:

The very first word here is very important. After she internally acknowledges that she never loved him, Lawrence says, "But suddenly she lifted her head again swiftly, like a thing that tries to get free." For you writers out there, arguably the most powerful word that a writer has is the word, "but." I almost always use it to start a sentence with it, and therefore capitalized. I almost never use it as a conjunction. And neither did Lawrence here. It signals a shift, a translition. Having reached a point of powerful opposition to her husband, she softens. Here's the rest of what Lawrence says:

Virgil, I did not requote you: everyone can read that part from your post. I agree about the word "But" and I often start sentences with it also. Must be why we feel this connection with Lawrence, eh? Yes, within this single word he turns things around or towards another direction. It is interesting what power that 'but' can have.

I think she realizes here that it's not the husband to blame, but the weight of reality, the weight of the circumstances. And then she goes on to tell him what happened.

Definitely, I had said that before. I didn't see where any blame was put on anyone. She feels it is 'it' - the thing she put upon herself that she can't get loose or free of. This 'it' is keeping her marriage from working and developing, growing. The woman is quite aware the problem lies within herself. I think at this point she wants to reveal all to him. She wants to spill out all the things that have made up this yoke around her neck and clear the air. It is as though one brick came tumbling down from her past and now all the wall must come down as well. She willingly wants to confess her past to him. This part very much reminds me of the Joyce short story "The Dead" in that the woman confesses her past lover to her husband and in doing so he comes to the realisation that she never loved him as passionately as she had loved her, now estranged and deceased, lover.

Now here is a question. Why does she tell him? Is it to be honest? Bring it out in the open? Or to destroy him with the informaton? I'm somewhat torn here. I would think it would be to bring it out in the open, but Lawrence says she speaks with hostility and to "wilfully wound him." Perhaps Lawrence wants it to be both simultaneously, but I think if he does it doesn't quite come through.

I felt it was to be honest. But I don't think she did so consciously. I think it just comes spilling out at this point as I described above. I do not believe she is willfully wanting to wound him but this may be the result, however the more important aspect seems to be the coming clean with her story and clearing the air between the husband and wife for good.

And the husband, who has reached a saturation point in being badly treated, fights back to destroy her:

That would be realistic between couples, wouldn't it?

They are trying to destroy the other with points. And he probes to find out the extent of the relationship.
People do fight this way. They don't fight logically at times. Sometimes things are just blurted out and used as weapons, mental, emotional ammunition.

:lol: I assume "the whole hogger" means sexual intercourse. I know Janine hated him for using that word. But there is good justification for a brutal word. It's bringing the raw reality, in its most gritty realistic terms, into consciousness. It dispells all the dreamy illusions that the woman was under. I think that's the actual climax of the story. Notice how things change.
Yes, it is a pretty funny phrase, isn't it? I guess old-fashioned. I do think it means that and so he is being really blunt with her in an earthy way - referring to hog. I still get a little ruffled at his manor of asking. It is like a very good trigger word to set her off again or to wound her. You are right, however, that no matter how 'brutal' the words are they do act as the catalyst to bring out this 'raw reality' and the truth into their consciousness. I agree this defining moment is definitely the climax to the story. There is a definite shift right after this confrontation.

He shrinks and feels small. Why? I think he too realizes the reality. He too has been in an idealized fantasy, to think that his wife didn't exist before they met and have a life before him. Notice the exchange afterward:

True - they both were living this fantasy which was idealized and hide many truths of the past. Good point - he saw her as though she did not exist before he meet her and married her.

They have not been open from the beginning. And notice he now doesn't go beserk when she then tells him that she actually met him today. The worst has passed and now that they've finally been honest with each other they can move on.

I agree with all of this. I said a while back that they could finally be honest at this moment and therefore hopefully would be able to move on and make a go at their marriage.

"At last he had learned the width of the breech between them." "They were both shocked so much, they were impersonal, and no longer hated each other." They have passed through this catharitic experience, and so now they can start toward a real marriage.

I really particularly like the phrase "At last he had learned the width of the breech between them". To me it is better to know of the truth than to sense something is there and one can't get through to what it is that is keeping them appart. As it also states "and no longer hated each other". I think that phrase is key. Exactly - the have passed through a catharitic experience - you have the right words for what happened. I did not know how to word that and did not feel it was transfiguration at this point. Do you agree?

Despite some poorly written spots, a brilliant conclusion. A fine story.

Maybe so, but this is an early work. I do think this story is a fine one and better than we first thought it be - the more we discussed, the more complex the story revealed itself to be to us. That is marvelous! The conclusion is brilliant; yes. I loved the story, but then I love them all. :thumbs_up :)

Virgil

02-17-2008, 11:46 PM

Now that we got to the last of the story, there is an idea that had occured to me earlier but had not yet got to it, when we began to break the story up in sections.

As it has been discussed in detail before, there is an imporantce placed on plysical appereances within the story, as it is pointed out that both the husband and woman are attractive, and flattering words at the begining are used in description of them, but I had noticed at the end of this story this imagery shifts, and both the man and the woman become ugly.

Perhaps it is a reflection of how they come to see each other at this point. As the descritpions now used to talk about them, are rather unflattering.

And the thing I thought was interesting is that twice the woman is refered to as "squatting" as for me, this word does not bring very graceful or pretty imagery, but is awakard and unattractive, the word itself I think is kind of ugly.
Great observation DM. When I refered to places poorly wrtten, "ugily" is one of them. "Ugily" as an adverb is ugly. ;) And I winced also at squatted. I couldn't quite picture that. Why would anyone squat on a bed? Ultimatly I pictured it as she pulling and holding her knees up to herself. But really that's not squatting. I don't know what to make of it. And yes they do turn ugly towards the end.

Definitely, I had said that before. I didn't see where any blame was put on anyone. She feels it is 'it' - the thing she put upon herself that she can't get loose or free of. This 'it' is keeping her marriage from working and developing, growing. The woman is quite aware the problem lies within herself. I think at this point she wants to reveal all to him. She wants to spill out all the things that have made up this yoke around her neck and clear the air. It is as though one brick came tumbling down from her past and now all the wall must come down as well. She willingly wants to confess her past to him.
Janine, she's still a b*t*h. :p :lol:

Dark Muse

02-17-2008, 11:49 PM

Yes I had a hard time trying to picture just how she would squat upon the bed as it did seem a rather awkard pose for one to take.

Janine

02-18-2008, 12:04 AM

Great observation DM. When I refered to places poorly wrtten, "ugily" is one of them. "Ugily" as an adverb is ugly. ;) And I winced also at squatted. I couldn't quite picture that. Why would anyone squat on a bed? Ultimatly I pictured it as she pulling and holding her knees up to herself. But really that's not squatting. I don't know what to make of it. And yes they do turn ugly towards the end.

Janine, she's still a b*t*h. :p :lol:

Haha - gee, thanks for taking the time to address the rest of my post. :(

Virgil

02-18-2008, 12:19 AM

Haha - gee, thanks for taking the time to address the rest of my post. :(

Oh I will. It was a lot to go through. I'm getting tired. I'll do it tomorrow, I promise.

Janine

02-18-2008, 12:22 AM

Oh I will. It was a lot to go through. I'm getting tired. I'll do it tomorrow, I promise.

:rolleyes: Oh.. ok, then.....I guess I am tired too and maybe was getting a little b****y! ;) :lol: we better get some rest. I think I will quit computing now and maybe finish my Lawrence book - only a few chapters more. I've been so tired all day.

Virgil

02-18-2008, 01:25 PM

Definitely, I had said that before. I didn't see where any blame was put on anyone. She feels it is 'it' - the thing she put upon herself that she can't get loose or free of. This 'it' is keeping her marriage from working and developing, growing. The woman is quite aware the problem lies within herself.
I don't know. She knows she loves the old lover and not the current husband. Do you think she cares about the husband? Or the marriage? She changes at the end because she sees the impossibility of going to the old lover.

I think at this point she wants to reveal all to him. She wants to spill out all the things that have made up this yoke around her neck and clear the air. It is as though one brick came tumbling down from her past and now all the wall must come down as well. She willingly wants to confess her past to him. This part very much reminds me of the Joyce short story "The Dead" in that the woman confesses her past lover to her husband and in doing so he comes to the realisation that she never loved him as passionately as she had loved her, now estranged and deceased, lover.
There are certainly similarities with Joyce's "The Dead." I'm still not sure why she wants to confess her past. I still think there is an element of trying to destroying him with the information.

I felt it was to be honest. But I don't think she did so consciously. I think it just comes spilling out at this point as I described above. I do not believe she is willfully wanting to wound him but this may be the result, however the more important aspect seems to be the coming clean with her story and clearing the air between the husband and wife for good.
Hmm. There's that too. But I tend to rest on the "hostility" word Lawrence uses.

People do fight this way. They don't fight logically at times. Sometimes things are just blurted out and used as weapons, mental, emotional ammunition.

Yes, it is a pretty funny phrase, isn't it? I guess old-fashioned. I do think it means that and so he is being really blunt with her in an earthy way - referring to hog. I still get a little ruffled at his manor of asking. It is like a very good trigger word to set her off again or to wound her. You are right, however, that no matter how 'brutal' the words are they do act as the catalyst to bring out this 'raw reality' and the truth into their consciousness. I agree this defining moment is definitely the climax to the story. There is a definite shift right after this confrontation.
I think we can agree on those points.

I really particularly like the phrase "At last he had learned the width of the breech between them". To me it is better to know of the truth than to sense something is there and one can't get through to what it is that is keeping them appart. As it also states "and no longer hated each other". I think that phrase is key. Exactly - the have passed through a catharitic experience - you have the right words for what happened. I did not know how to word that and did not feel it was transfiguration at this point. Do you agree?
Yes I agree, there is no transfiguration. I too loved that sentenece, "At last he had learned the width of the breech between them". It's almost like a thesis sentence that explains the story.

Maybe so, but this is an early work. I do think this story is a fine one and better than we first thought it be - the more we discussed, the more complex the story revealed itself to be to us. That is marvelous! The conclusion is brilliant; yes. I loved the story, but then I love them all. :thumbs_up :)
Great. I still think we should take a break and perhpas by mid to end of March we can do another story. I'm tied up with other reading. What do people think?

Janine

02-18-2008, 04:05 PM

I don't know. She knows she loves the old lover and not the current husband. Do you think she cares about the husband? Or the marriage? She changes at the end because she sees the impossibility of going to the old lover.

Well, now there is 'the question' - of whether she does truly still love the old lover. You see, in my opinion, she loved the idea of him and the memory, but not truly the man. She seemed to show no true sorrow towards him, when she found him as he was. Yes, she certainly did feel shock, but she might also have felt shock in finding him with his mind in-tack. I don't think she ever intended on meeting up with him. He was suppose to be dead! I think when he appears, it is like seeing a ghost and truly more poignant is, that actually, he is a ghost or a shadow, of the man she once knew. I have thought on this whole idea so often. What if I meet up with an exlover - would I feel the same way - and usually I come up with this thought that, realistically speaking, I doubt very much I would feel any real love for that person anymore. Only living back in the memory of the good times, do I perceive love with him and not projected into the now or the future. Do you see what I am trying to say? For instance, if Lawrence later meet up with his first love, Jessie, and she had been persumed dead, would he have left his wife to go to her? If it did not work out the first time, then what makes you think they could just pick up from where they were now? No, I feel the old lover, for this woman, is totally rooted in the past and can't pass over into the now. That doorway into the courtyard is very significant. I see this shadow of the past, this man - the lover - who is also a shadow, of what he had been and what had been between them - not being able, in anyway, to pass into her outside world. The garden embodies her past and his and now she must leave that superficial garden of 'dream and memory' to enter back, and live daily in her new found world with the husband. Probably from the beginning of their marriage, she has been chained to this past and it, being a deep dark secret (as in a shadow herself), which has kept her from truly loving her husband. If the shadow now is torn from her perhaps they can now view each other realistically and actually see themselves as the are now.

There are certainly similarities with Joyce's "The Dead." I'm still not sure why she wants to confess her past. I still think there is an element of trying to destroying him with the information.

Just like Gabriel and his wife, he questioned her until she caved in and told him the story. When she came home she did not just blurt it out to her husband and try to destroy him with the information. I don't agree with you here at all. Neither mate is trying to destroy the other. They are simply having a marital fight and it gets nasty and yet when it gets to a certain point there is where hope begins. The marriage perhaps must burn down to embers (like the Phoenix bird) and then new life can spring from it.
I think with Joyce's story I don't see as much hope between husband and wife - the story ends on a sad note and doesn't give the reader true hope. The husband and wife do not argue and do not air out any differences. They stay contained and she falls off to sleep; he is unable to console her and sits at the window looking out and ruminating silently on his position in the marriage. I feel in Lawrence's story there is this tiny shred of hope for this couple that they might begin again and find happiness someday.

Hmm. There's that too. But I tend to rest on the "hostility" word Lawrence uses.

You don't think hostility can be blurted out unconsicously? I think couples arguing can become very hostile at times. I don't know how literal Lawrence meant the word to be. He certainly did not mean harm would be inflicted on either physically. The weapons here are definitely physcological and emotional weapons.

I think we can agree on those points.

Yeah!!!;) cause I was getting a little b... ichy :lol: last night.

Yes I agree, there is no transfiguration. I too loved that sentenece, "At last he had learned the width of the breech between them". It's almost like a thesis sentence that explains the story.

Yes, that is good - a 'thesis' - good word!

Great. I still think we should take a break and perhpas by mid to end of March we can do another story. I'm tied up with other reading. What do people think?

I am not sure of this idea. I am not so tied up as you. How many books are you discussing? I saw you again in Aeneid - is that still going on and "TNOTR" seems like an equally complicated read. I won't do next months monthly read; two novels this month is killing me. I want to do some other reading on my own, anyway. I only then have the Chekhov short story thread, so maybe a short short story again in here I could handle. We can talk further about this in a PM. I hate to postpone again, since we have people interested now. I will ask the others, too and if they all want a break we can take one month off and start up again in April. Hey, others - what do you think?

Quark

02-18-2008, 05:21 PM

I think at this point she wants to reveal all to him. She wants to spill out all the things that have made up this yoke around her neck and clear the air. It is as though one brick came tumbling down from her past and now all the wall must come down as well. She willingly wants to confess her past to him. This part very much reminds me of the Joyce short story "The Dead" in that the woman confesses her past lover to her husband and in doing so he comes to the realisation that she never loved him as passionately as she had loved her, now estranged and deceased, lover.

This may be a very forgiving reading of the wife's behavior at the end. For whatever reason, she's still concealing her true feelings. She admits to loving the madman in the garden, but not for clarity. Lawrence tells us that she is feeling, "destructive", and her statements seem designed to be the most wounding. She senses the husband trying to establish a connection with her and she says what is most "destructive" to him. I don't know if we can blame the wife for doing this, though. She really doesn't love the husband that's trying to force himself on her. After she's just experienced real happiness in the garden it would be hard to return to the husband and not feel some resentment.

I like the comparison with "The Dead". I think it does fit.

People do fight this way. They don't fight logically at times. Sometimes things are just blurted out and used as weapons, mental, emotional ammunition.

Yeah, I don't think their fight is far-fetched in any way. Almost all heated arguments get nonsensical at some point.

True - they both were living this fantasy which was idealized and hide many truths of the past. Good point - he saw her as though she did not exist before he meet her and married her.

Painful realizations make up quite of few of these climaxes, don't they?

I agree with all of this. I said a while back that they could finally be honest at this moment and therefore hopefully would be able to move on and make a go at their marriage.

This story seems so well contained that I really don't think about what's going to happen after. Maybe it's only because I'm not sure what I want to happen, or maybe it has to do with linear--all present tense--way of storytelling. Some stories do lend themselves to that kind of speculation. In "The Lady with the Dog" discussion many of our posts were focused on exactly that. It seemed like we had to define Gurov's past relationships, and decide whether he would be happy at the end in order. For some reason I don't really wonder about those things in this story.

[/QUOTE]

As it has been discussed in detail before, there is an imporantce placed on plysical appereances within the story, as it is pointed out that both the husband and woman are attractive, and flattering words at the begining are used in description of them, but I had noticed at the end of this story this imagery shifts, and both the man and the woman become ugly.

Perhaps it is a reflection of how they come to see each other at this point. As the descritpions now used to talk about them, are rather unflattering.

Lawrence's language at the end is weird and almost jarring. It could be a reflection of what's going on in the story, or it could be just poor writing. I'd have to go back and see if the story is written "ugily" all throughout or just at the end.

I don't know. She knows she loves the old lover and not the current husband. Do you think she cares about the husband? Or the marriage? She changes at the end because she sees the impossibility of going to the old lover.

Lawrence tells us flat out that she doesn't love the husband. If you do try to prove that she has affection for him, I think you have a tall mountain to climb.

Virgil

02-18-2008, 06:15 PM

This may be a very forgiving reading of the wife's behavior at the end. For whatever reason, she's still concealing her true feelings. She admits to loving the madman in the garden, but not for clarity. Lawrence tells us that she is feeling, "destructive", and her statements seem designed to be the most wounding. She senses the husband trying to establish a connection with her and she says what is most "destructive" to him. I don't know if we can blame the wife for doing this, though. She really doesn't love the husband that's trying to force himself on her. After she's just experienced real happiness in the garden it would be hard to return to the husband and not feel some resentment.

So you think the woman is unsympathetic (I won't use the B-word ;) ) too. I don't know why Janine cuts her a break. It must be because she's associating something biographical with Lawrence and his wife in the story. But if you take the story in itself, without bringing in outside life or even connecting it to other works, one has to consider the woman as mean.

Lawrence tells us flat out that she doesn't love the husband. If you do try to prove that she has affection for him, I think you have a tall mountain to climb.
I think that sums it up. But I do think the story projects a better future.

Quark

02-18-2008, 06:49 PM

So you think the woman is unsympathetic (I won't use the B-word ;) ) too. I don't know why Janine cuts her a break. It must be because she's associating something biographical with Lawrence and his wife in the story. But if you take the story in itself, without bringing in outside life or even connecting it to other works, one has to consider the woman as mean.

I do have some sympathy for the wife. She's trapped with a husband she doesn't care for. I just think that at the end she doesn't handle it in the best way--nor does the husband, really. Ultimately, though, both characters are made to draw our sympathy. The relationship makes neither of them happy, and each has a real grievance with the other. Earlier, I was just pointing out that I thought Lawrence did a better job forming the wife's complaints than he did the husband's.

Janine

02-18-2008, 06:56 PM

Oh good, lets wrap up this one. I am sick of discussing it, aren't you? I think now we are beating the story to death. Gee and I thought this was one of his less complicated SHORT stories! Ha!....

So do we have a vote for next month - skip the month or do another short one?

You know what is funny - we are divided on this thing about the woman and sympathy or hatred for her, but you would think it males against females - instead it is 'even Steven' - 2 against 2 and both sexes disagreeing. I think we would all disagree until doomsday! haha....guess we should just hang it up now and move onward....

I do have some sympathy for the wife. She's trapped with a husband she doesn't care for. I just think that at the end she doesn't handle it in the best way--nor does the husband, really. Ultimately, though, both characters are made to draw our sympathy. The relationship makes neither of them happy, and each has a real grievance with the other. Earlier, I was just pointing out that I thought Lawrence did a better job forming the wife's complaints than he did the husband's.

One final note about what you said - I think that is because basically the story centers around the wife and is about her profound experience in the rose garden confronting her past.

Dark Muse

02-18-2008, 07:32 PM

Whatever works best for everyone else can work for me, I am fine either waiting, or starting a new one up

Janine

02-18-2008, 11:41 PM

Whatever works best for everyone else can work for me, I am fine either waiting, or starting a new one up

Dark Muse, if I pick a story for next month, I promise I will try very hard to choose one with a very nice, congenial (not mean) woman character.;) :lol:

My vote probably would be to do a story, since I don't have too much going on next month. I may join in the book discussion, if "Dubliners" is chosen; but those are short stories also, so I could just jump in for the ones I truly liked, in the collection. How about you, DM, do you plan on joining in that discussion, also? I see you have been over in "TNOTR"...since I am only listening to the audiobooks, which at this point I am totally lost and confused about the plot, I might try to read the novel next month at my leisure.

Dark Muse

02-18-2008, 11:45 PM

Well right now I am reading A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, and well that is enough Joyce at one time for me. I looking forward to just getting that one over with so I can start something else.

Virgil

02-18-2008, 11:47 PM

Oh I think Dubliners will be chosen. OK, perhaps I'll try to squeeze in a Lawrence story. :)

Janine

02-19-2008, 12:10 AM

Oh I think Dubliners will be chosen. OK, perhaps I'll try to squeeze in a Lawrence story. :)

Virgil, if we do a story and you can't fit it in this month, that is no big deal really. We will understand. You will be missed, but we will understand that you can take a break. Do so, whenever you need one. ;)

You read "Dubliners" before didn't you? I thought I would just discuss the stories, that interested me most from the collection, or just read the comments to learn more about those stories I might not have comprehended fully.

Virgil

02-19-2008, 07:53 AM

Virgil, if we do a story and you can't fit it in this month, that is no big deal really. We will understand. You will be missed, but we will understand that you can take a break. Do so, whenever you need one. ;)

OK, but then I feel guilty about not having read one. I'd hate to miss out.

You read "Dubliners" before didn't you? I thought I would just discuss the stories, that interested me most from the collection, or just read the comments to learn more about those stories I might not have comprehended fully.
Several of the stories I've read a few times. I think I've read them all at least once. I can't imagine doing the stories in the detail we do here. There are at least a dozen and we have the month. Here we do a story a month. It should be intersting, even though i voted for something else.

Janine

02-19-2008, 04:53 PM

OK, but then I feel guilty about not having read one. I'd hate to miss out.

I knew you would say that. I would probably feel the same way. Maybe you could let me know the stories that you have read, ones that we have not as yet. I will PM you about them today. I had some ideas and I will pass them by you.

Several of the stories I've read a few times. I think I've read them all at least once. I can't imagine doing the stories in the detail we do here. There are at least a dozen and we have the month. Here we do a story a month. It should be intersting, even though i voted for something else.

Yes, really....I think if they do pick "Dubliners" (and it looks that way) they don't know what they are in for. Each story really needs about a month. Awhile back, everyone voted to do all the Oscar Wilde fairytales. Guess what happened? A few of us read them; I read about 5 online, which I don't relish doing. I know Pensive read some. So come time to talk about them - no one shows up, I checked on it for weeks and if they did show up, it must have been in the last days of the thread.
Ok, now we are suppose to be discussing for this month "Tale of Two Cities" -it is already the 19th of the month and only two people are basically discussing the book - myself and manolia, occasionally Pensive has commented. It is going very, very slowly....but that is ok, as long as we keep discussing it even after the month is up. I can't really see how we can possibly discuss the whole book come March 1. I am beginning to wonder about these time limits to monthly books, but the one saving grace in this ATOTC thread, is that manolia says she will discuss the book with me privately/or in the thread, even when the month is up. She wrote me a sweet PM today to let me know she read my last two posts, and will answer them in a day or so. It is just that I am wondering where are the other people who voted on this book? So this is my pet-peeve. Actually, I think this book was designated as the 'Valentine's Day' read.
Ok, so with "Dubliners", in my opinion, the book needs a thread of it's own, like this thread. It needs for the entire book at least a year's attention for - one or two stories per month. Joyce, like Lawrence and Chehkov, is a very complex author. As with Chekhov and Lawrence, we have needed whole thread that is ongoing, without any limited time set. With Joyce's novel, I can't imagine what kind of structure the discussion will take on a book of short stories. Will they start with the first one and go from there? I need to post these question directly to the Dubliners thread when it is started in March, I suppose.
Well, I just had to speak my mind here and vent a little. I know I have done a lot of work preparing for the various discussions on some books, that have totally flopped in discussion lately. I was enthused about one recently and two people dominated the discussion with political opinions (no names mentioned). It got to be really annoying, so I admit, I finally just dropped out; and I know other people did the same. I kept wondering when they would actually discuss the book and the characters. By the time I was done wondering, the next month was upon us.

Virgil, maybe I am just being crabby!;) :lol:

Quark

02-20-2008, 08:14 PM

Ok, now we are suppose to be discussing for this month "Tale of Two Cities" -it is already the 19th of the month and only two people are basically discussing the book - myself and manolia, occasionally Pensive has commented. It is going very, very slowly....but that is ok, as long as we keep discussing it even after the month is up. I can't really see how we can possibly discuss the whole book come March 1. I am beginning to wonder about these time limits to monthly books, but the one saving grace in this ATOTC thread, is that manolia says she will discuss the book with me privately/or in the thread, even when the month is up. She wrote me a sweet PM today to let me know she read my last two posts, and will answer them in a day or so. It is just that I am wondering where are the other people who voted on this book? So this is my pet-peeve. Actually, I think this book was designated as the 'Valentine's Day' read.

Ugh... is that true? I knew I should have posted on that thread. It's not my favorite Dickens novel, but I'm still surprised the conversation would flounder like that.

Janine

02-20-2008, 10:22 PM

Ugh... is that true? I knew I should have posted on that thread. It's not my favorite Dickens novel, but I'm still surprised the conversation would flounder like that.

I better PM you my longer reply. Quark, I wish you had entered into the discussion, because ATOTC is a great book. I have been doing some research on the book and digging up some good ideas and ways to discuss it. If you care to, please peak at the thread and see what we have been posting so far. Even though it is basically two of us we have not done too badly so far.

Janine

02-27-2008, 05:45 PM

Hello Everyone! This is just to let you know I have been reading/reviewing many of the Lawrence short stories this week and I have a few good ones picked out for future discussion, one in particular for this month. If any of you want to begin reading the story the next short story we will be discussing will be:

THE BLIND MAN

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p70/sealace/Braille.jpg

This is in Volume II of "The Collected Short Stories". You can find the online text on this very site:
http://www.online-literature.com/dh_lawrence/england-my-england/3/

Enjoy your reading, everyone!

We will begin discussions on Monday morning, March 3rd.

Janine

02-27-2008, 06:18 PM

Just adding this quick note - I will try to email everyone to let them know about the story. J

Quark

03-01-2008, 12:05 AM

Janine

03-01-2008, 04:05 PM

Janine, which Lawrence SS book book do you have? I'm looking into getting one so I don't have to strain my eyes reading off a computer screen--although my new flat screen is quite a luxurious viewing experience.

I'll probably get to reading "Blind Man" tomorrow. If my fragile corneas can last long enough for me to write a post, I might get a chance to post something, too. It seems like I may be talking to myself, though. Where did everyone go?

Quark, you must be patient...I feel sure you won't be talking to yourself; and even if you were - at least you know who you would be dealing with;) :lol: . When things get rolling, I will attend both discussions; I have promised, haven't I? Even being half-sick still, I will be there.

Actually, buying the Lawrence collection of the short stories can be a little problematic. The way they are set up is that there is actually 3 separate volumes of the Collected Short Stories. There are other additions such as "England, My England" with other stories and also same with "Prussian Officer and Other Stories". I happen to own the first one, but they don't have all the stories from the entire 3 volume collection. The ones I needed to fill in what I did not have were volumes One and Two; I owned Volume 3. I had to order them from Amazon and settle for used copies. Luckily, I found a seller who threw in the one used book, basically because it was not in great condition and has promptly fallen appart...of course, it is still readable and was free, so I can't really complain.

So here is what I will do; I certainly do not recommend you go blind. I will check Amazon and see if I can track down a copy for you. Do you have an account on there? Last night I read the Chekhov story "Misery"...I printed it out from online since it only was 4 pages long. I also have printed out "Oh! The Public" - so I am ready. I did listen to that one on my audio cd set.

Hey, those new screens are nice, eh? I bought myself one not long ago. It is 19 inch and really accomodates the several windows I like to keep open at once. I am multi-brained you know!:D
But like you, I really don't enjoy reading the stories online. How many pages would "The Blind Man" be to print it out? Do you have a printer? I printed on 'draft' and 'fast' speed to save on ink. Also, you can decrease the font size to make less pages.

Virgil

03-01-2008, 04:10 PM

Janine

03-01-2008, 04:18 PM

Janine and Quark, there is now a The Complete Stories of DH Lawrence in one volume. It might be hard to find but it exists. Otherwise I have the three (of The Complete...) parts in individual paperbacks.

Oh, I think I did know of it but then try and find it. I will look on Amazon and see if it is listed.
Virgil, how do you like the photo I came up with? I thought it was a good one and symbolic. You know me - like to illustrate the stories. :D

Quark

03-01-2008, 04:22 PM

Janine and Quark, there is now a The Complete Stories of DH Lawrence in one volume. It might be hard to find but it exists.

Yes, I'm looking for something like that. A comprehensive, single-volume, anthology would be nice--even if it weighs more than a cinder block.

Janine

03-01-2008, 04:44 PM

Quark and Virgil,I just saw it on Amazon and the bad news is used it cost at the least $61. If you go to this page you will see several of the volumes - the first two listed but then that would leave one you still need. If you look into the 'used and new' vendors, you will see one seller midway down the page has 98% positive and seems to be ok but from Alaska - his price is around $7 for one of the volumes - paperback. Here is the link to the page on Amazon listing the books:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/104-5585308-0814300?url=search-alias%

This is why I did not buy the $61 dollar hardback - who can afford that? My only other thought is you might find them in a college book store. I think I checked Barnes and Noble and they don't have them. Trouble is they are out of print now....sad thing....

Hira

03-02-2008, 03:27 AM

Pensive

03-02-2008, 05:31 AM

Spoiler!

Last night, I managed to read the story. Really liked it a lot though of course it did ruin my predictions that I had created in my mind's eye. :p The ending was totally unexpected for me as I had not expected the two men one of whom resented the other who never let the chance of mocking him pass to be friends again. But the whole scene in the end, the start of their 'friendship' and the feelings of Bertie I guess made up the most interesting part of the story, unexpected though it might be for me. Sometimes surprises are good too. :)

Might re-read it again, and goodluck to those who are/who will be going through it! :)

Janine

03-02-2008, 04:10 PM

Pensive, thanks for putting SPOILER in large bold type, in case some have not read the story yet. I read the story, so I read your post. I also, want to re-read the story tonight. I am part of the Chekhov SS thread too, so I want to relisten to that story tonight on my CD. I feel asleep last night before I got to that story - track #6....silly me, but I have read it also. Interesting story.

Exactly - "Sometimes surprises are good too." definitely! Yes, Lawrence loved to surprise, I believe, at the very ending of a story. I liked especially the ending, too, but I also very much liked the part when the young wife went looking for her husband in the darkened barn and she felt afraid. I think that showed her more sensually and first-hand what exactly, it would feel like to be blind. Before that moment she could only imagine his blindness but this made her also blind and feeling as her husband would feel alone in the darkness. I felt it was a key moment in the story in her relating to how he felt in his isolation of blindness. I will expand on discussing this idea tomorrow and post that exact passage. I thought it was so well written.

Pensive, glad you see you here for the discussion! I anticipate that this will be a very good one. Quark,Virgil, Dark Muse and hopefully Hira have shown interest. I am hoping manolia can join in, as well.

Dark Muse

03-02-2008, 04:21 PM

I cannot wait untill we offically start discussing the story on Monday.

Janine

03-02-2008, 04:29 PM

I cannot wait untill we offically start discussing the story on Monday.

Dark Muse, you can start if you want to. It is only one day ahead. I know others are anxious, as well....and like I said, I have read the story.

Dark Muse

03-02-2008, 04:32 PM

Hehe well for now I just want to say, first of all I did not know it was going to be a horror story LOL

To me that scene in the barn with Bertie and Maurice= CREEEPY

By the way, did anyone else think Bertie might have been gay?

When I get the chance, I plan to read though it again and highlight my faveorite phrases and I should have those ready by Monday sometime.

Janine

03-02-2008, 04:45 PM

Hehe well for now I just want to say, first of all I did not know it was going to be a horror story LOL

To me that scene in the barn with Bertie and Maurice= CREEEPY

Haha, no I did not think it was a horror story. I did find the ending uncomfortable, especially when the blind man had Bertie feel is empty eye-sockets. That seemed 'creepy', but it was not unrealistic for a blind man to do so. Remember he has no visual sense to know another person, he must rely on 'touch'. His world now is a tackle one and very viseral, sensual. I think if anything it was tender and demonstrated the lines his wife said, when she was trying to explain to Bertie, that they now had 'something else'....but she could not explain it in words, something that replaced her husband's sight.

By the way, did anyone else think Bertie might have been gay?

I don't think Lawrence would have intended Bertie to be gay. I think he is getting more to the whole idea that Bertie cannot truly 'connect' with people emotionally or on the level that now the blind man can. The blind man has gone through a tranformation and the ending the blind man forces this on Bertie - this is true. I don't think they view the scene in the barn quite the same. Bertie keeps very much contained and to himself and is a bachelor and somewhat of a recluse. He is resigned to his life of solitude and when the blind man breaks into his wall of solitude it is an earth shattering experience for Bertie.

When I get the chance, I plan to read though it again and highlight my faveorite phrases and I should have those ready by Monday sometime.

Dark Muse

03-02-2008, 06:01 PM

Haha, no I did not think it was a horror story. I did find the ending uncomfortable, especially when the blind man had Bertie feel is empty eye-sockets. That seemed 'creepy', but it was not unrealistic for a blind man to do so. Remember he has no visual sense to know another person, he must rely on 'touch'. His world now is a tackle one and very viseral, sensual. I think if anything it was tender and demonstrated the lines his wife said, when she was trying to explain to Bertie, that they now had 'something else'....but she could not explain it in words, something that replaced her husband's sight.

Mostly I jest, though I did really think that the scene was a bit creepy and it reminded me in someways of Grapes of Wrath at the every end, where the woman nurses from her breast the grown man.

I understand how the Blindman relies upon his other senses, and though perhaps a bit awakard, the part in which he wanted to feel Bertie's face, that made sense and was reasonable.

But I think when you tell someone to feel your scar and stick thier fingers in your eye sockets, that is a little extreme.

I don't think Lawrence would have intended Bertie to be gay. I think he is getting more to the whole idea that Bertie cannot truly 'connect' with people emotionally or on the level that now the blind man can. The blind man has gone through a tranformation and the ending the blind man forces this on Bertie - this is true. I don't think they view the scene in the barn quite the same. Bertie keeps very much contained and to himself and is a bachelor and somewhat of a recluse. He is resigned to his life of solitude and when the blind man breaks into his wall of solitude it is an earth shattering experience for Bertie.

Yes I was aware the Bertie really was uncomftrable with any sort of true intimacy with other people. But just the way he was decribed and the fact that he has "girlfriends" but still remains a bachelor, though it is because of his inablity to make true comitment, I could not help but to picture him as being somewhat of a dandy.

Janine

03-02-2008, 06:11 PM

Mostly I jest, though I did really think that the scene was a bit creepy and it reminded me in someways of Grapes of Wrath at the every end, where the woman nurses from her breast the grown man.[QUOTE]

I knew you were partly jesting because you put hehe first. Wow, I don't recall that part of "The Grapes of Wrath"...it has been years since I read that book - high school to be precise; maybe they gave us the censored version....hehe...now I am jesting. I will have to go back and read that ending again.

[QUOTE]I understand how the Blindman relies upon his other senses, and though perhaps a bit awakard, the part in which he wanted to feel Bertie's face, that made sense and was reasonable.

But I think when you tell someone to feel your scar and stick thier fingers in your eye sockets, that is a little extreme.

Well, I must agree with this and that yes, the part with him forcing poor Bertie to feel his eye-sockets freaked me out, as well. Things like that do. But I can't help but think this was Lawrence's point. Afterall, the husband had to live permanently with these horrible scars and I think he wanted Bertie to know what that would be like; so therefore he had him tactually feel them first-hand, as though he was experiencing his own face.

Yes I was aware the Bertie really was uncomftrable with any sort of true intimacy with other people. But just the way he was decribed and the fact that he has "girlfriends" but still remains a bachelor, though it is because of his inablity to make true comitment, I could not help but to picture him as being somewhat of a dandy.

I don't think back then it would have been so unusual for this to be the case with a man. I think this man's concentration was on his work and his ambition and his life went into a mode of acceptance as to his fate being single. He does not sound like the most attractive man in the world and when the wife described his short legs that sounded like a real turn-off to me. I saw him more like the 'clerky' type of guy. What made you think he was more of a 'dandy'? To me he seemed intelligent, but always in full control of himself and unaware of his own emotional makeup.

Dark Muse

03-02-2008, 06:24 PM

I knew you were partly jesting because you put hehe first. Wow, I don't recall that part of "The Grapes of Wrath"...it has been years since I read that book - high school to be precise; maybe they gave us the censored version....hehe...now I am jesting. I will have to go back and read that ending again.

Hehe yeah that scene creeped me out a bit.

Well, I must agree with this and that yes, the part with him forcing poor Bertie to feel his eye-sockets freaked me out, as well. Things like that do. But I can't help but think this was Lawrence's point. Afterall, the husband had to live permanently with these horrible scars and I think he wanted Bertie to know what that would be like; so therefore he had him tactually feel them first-hand, as though he was experiencing his own face.

Yes I agree that is the case, and at the start of it, when they were first talking over dinner, I thought that Bertie was being a bit tactless and insenstive in the questions he was asking, and the way in which he was talking. It is true that he could not truly understand, untill he in someway experinced it first hand, which had changed his perception.

I don't think back then it would have been so unusual for this to be the case with a man. I think this man's concentration was on his work and his ambition and his life went into a mode of acceptance as to his fate being single. He does not sound like the most attractive man in the world and when the wife described his short legs that sounded like a real turn-off to me. I saw him more like the 'clerky' type of guy. What made you think he was more of a 'dandy'? To me he seemed intelligent, but always in full control of himself and unaware of his own emotional makeup.

I do not know, just something about the way his general personality was, and the way in which he seemed kind of gib, and the fact that he is always hagning out with women, without being intimate with them.

And in a way it is almost like he was Isabel's girlfriend. And in comparison to Maurice he just did not seem very masculine.

I do agree though that he was not described in a very flattering way.

Janine

03-02-2008, 06:30 PM

Hehe yeah that scene creeped me out a bit.
I agree - from our point of limited view it was kind of creepy, but to Maurice I believe it wasn't at all. Again, I think that is the point that Lawrence was trying to impart to us - how different seeing people's perception is compared to blind people.

Yes I agree that is the case, and at the start of it, when they were first talking over dinner, I thought that Bertie was being a bit tactless and insenstive in the questions he was asking, and the way in which he was talking. It is true that he could not truly understand, untill he in someway experinced it first hand, which had changed his perception.

I got that impression, too and yes, I don't think he could begin to realise or apprehend what it was like to be scared or blinded before the incident in the barn. It had to be first hand and personal.

I do not know, just something about the way his general personality was, and the way in which he seemed kind of gib, and the fact that he is always hagning out with women, without being intimate with them.

And in a way it is almost like he was Isabel's girlfriend. And in comparison to Maurice he just did not seem very masculine.

I do agree though that he was not described in a very flattering way.

I didn't see him much different than other characters I have read about in Lawrence's and other's stories of that time period. I just got the impression that he was delicate and rather whimpy. I will have to re-read that part again and see if anything jumps out at me; but as to him being gay, I never picked up that idea from the text.

Dark Muse

03-02-2008, 06:39 PM

I didn't see him much different than other characters I have read about in Lawrence's and other's stories of that time period. I just got the impression that he was delicate and rather whimpy. I will have to re-read that part again and see if anything jumps out at me; but as to him being gay, I never picked up that idea from the text.

hehe it is probably just me

Janine

03-02-2008, 06:47 PM

hehe it is probably just me

Well, but even if he were, it would not have any bearing on the story, do you think? I got more the notion that the husband felt quite left out at the dinner table. I don't think he felt that Bertie could take his place with his wife, but I felt there was a sense of feeling snubbed for the husband and perhaps jealousy. The wife and Bertie could still share the world of the seeing, of which the blind man now was completely excluded. One could certainly see how he would feel.

Virgil

03-02-2008, 06:51 PM

Haha, you two always seem to disagree about a character. :D I'll be reading the story during the week.

Janine

03-02-2008, 07:28 PM

Haha, you two always seem to disagree about a character. :D I'll be reading the story during the week.

:lol: haha - and here I thought I safely picked a story neither one of you could acuse the woman of being a b****! I read a few that would have provided women characters who would be prime targets, but I refrained from suggesting those. One such story, "Two Bluebirds", we must eventually read/discuss, because if you and DM thought that other woman was a b****, then wait until you see this wife. Oh my goodness - she takes the cake!

Virgil, glad you will be reading it too. Take your time. I know this will be a busy hectic week for you.

Dark Muse

03-02-2008, 11:20 PM

LOL I am not really disagrering at least not trying to, it was just a funny thought that came to me when I was reading the story, that in my mind I could see him being gay, but it is not really an imporant issue, and I agree that he probably was not intended to be so, just how it came off to me.

Virgil

03-02-2008, 11:50 PM

Janine

03-03-2008, 12:17 AM

I haven't read this story in a while so I don't recall the possible homosexuality. Or let me say I vaguely remember it. But let me just say that at about the time this story was written Lawrence was friends with the philosopher Bertram Russell, who happened to be gay. Lawrence even went to at least one but perhaps several of Russell's parties, which were a gathering of homosexuals. It's hard to say exactly what happened, but Lawrence may have had an initial attraction to homosexuality but shortly then had a major repulsion to it and he and Russell had a big falling out. There is a famous Lawrence letter to Russell that gives Lawrence's side to this. If when i read the story and I think there is a link to Lawrence's life I will find that letter.

OK, Virgil, I know what you are going to say to me next. Janine, could you look in the timeline book and see when the story was written, so that is what I just did....I am one step ahead of you. :lol:
I found this entry:

NOVEMBER 1918 At Chapel Farm Cottage until 14, except for a visit to London 11, for the Armistice party at Montague Shearman's, then at Mountain Cottage, except for a visit to London and Berkshire 23-6.

9 NOV. Lawerence told Catherine Carswell that he was doing 'The Blind Man'.

21 NOV. I've not done 'The Fox yet --but I've done 'The Blind Man' --the end queer and ironical. I realise how many people are just rotten at the quick. I've written three little essays, 'Education of the People' [Moore 566]. For the background to 'The Blind Man' see Carswell 105-6.

23 NOV. Lawrence told Pinker that he had written three short stories, two of which were very good. The third was 'Tickets Please', then called 'John Thomas'. During this month Lawrence had made several visits to a dying friend in Eastwood, and had probably travelled between Ripley and Eastwood by tram.

Two curious statements stand out to me here - the first being in Lawrence's own words "but I've done 'The Blind Man' --the end queer and ironical." The statement that follows, I don't quite understand the significance of; I guess I would have to read that essay. Also I don't have assess to Carswell to know the background of the story.
The other remark that Lawrence saw this story as "very good" stands out to me from this entry.

I just found this commentary online at this site:
http://litmed.med.nyu.edu/Annotation?action=view&annid=12343
I found this part noteworthy to post here.

Although communication, disability, and human connection are three important issues considered in "The Blind Man," a major lesson of the story is aptly summed up by the character, Bertie: "I suppose we're all deficient somewhere" (92). The ending of this tale has a visceral power. The final three pages depicting the emotional transformation (facilitated by the simple act of touching) of the two male characters are riveting.
The conclusion reminds readers of the joy and responsibility of human intimacy. The entire story underscores the difficulty and possibility of rebuilding damaged lives and overcoming loss. There are striking similarities between "The Blind Man" and Raymond Carver's Cathedral (see this database). These two short stories work especially well when read together. Both of them make a convincing argument that of all five human senses, touch is the most powerful.

Virgil, do you think the ending is a transfiguration for the two males?

Virgil

03-03-2008, 12:24 AM

Thanks Janine. I was going to ask you. ;) Hmm, that's a little later than I thought. The Russell incident happened around 1915 I think.

Janine

03-03-2008, 12:34 AM

Thanks Janine. I was going to ask you. ;) Hmm, that's a little later than I thought. The Russell incident happened around 1915 I think.

Gosh, you are fast. Didn't I know it though - I knew you well enough by now, that you would ask me to look it up. hahaha. I get to do all the work. I typed that whole thing out, you know.

I don't really think there is any suggestion of homosexuality in the story and if it were true that Bertie had those tendancies I don't think that would play into this story or why Maurice, being blind, would instigate the incident in the barn. I did not see that in anyway as a sexual advance. I felt it was purely tackle and to aid in the other man's understanding of what it was to become blind.

Did you read the commentary I just posted - I had to edit to add that to my post so you may have missed it. I found it online. I agree that the ending had a great impact and is viseral. The ending was powerful.

Virgil

03-03-2008, 12:40 AM

Virgil, do you think the ending is a transfiguration for the two males?

You'll have to wait until I read it. ;) It did cross my mind as I read you and Dark Muse discuss it. If so perhaps I should have used it in my thesis. Could I have missed it? We'll see. :D

As to that commentary above. That Raymond Carver story is excellent and I knew it was influenced by Lawrence's The Blind Man. If you get a chance some day, read it.

Janine

03-03-2008, 01:36 AM

Oh, how interesting - the Raymond Carver story - do you think I can find it online? the text?

I guess you could have missed this transfiguration. You could only put so much into your thesis and you did a good thorough job, although this might have been an interesting example. I think that Maurice seems transfigured at the end, I am not sure of Bertie. He seemed more stunned; but I have only read the story once, so I might get a whole different impression next time around.

Virgil, guess what? I just found the online text to Cathedral and copied it to my hard-drive. It is at this link, if you are interested in reading it: http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/instruct/cinichol/GovSchool/Cathedral2.htm I read a bit about the story on another site; the two stories are so similiar in concept. However, in this story the roles are reversed - the visitor who is an old friend to the wife is the blind man. Her husband is the one who feels threatened byt their closeness. Quite interesting.

Dark Muse

03-03-2008, 01:43 AM

Janine

03-03-2008, 04:09 PM

Yes I would agree with that. Maurice seemed able to have overcome his initial feelings towrd Bertie after thier experince together, but Bertie, did not really seem to "grow" from the experince, and other than perhaps never wanting to visit thier house again LOL, I do not think he was changed. Rather he seemed rather petrified by both his revulsion of the physcial act, as well as the established intimacy caused from it.

Dark Muse, I got the same impression of the two men and how the felt afterwards, but I am in the midst of re-reading the story now, so that may change as time goes on. I started last night, but only got to about half and thought I would discuss some things that stood out to me up to that point in the story. I recall you or someone else mentioned they could already see the blood consciousness in the story; now that I think of it it was in a PM that Hira sent to me. In the following passages, especially the last part when Maurice is in the house again and alone in the bathroom I believe we do see this coming through quite clearly. This first part though stands out to me in that now Isabel is taken into the blind world of the blind man by entering the darkened barn - she is experiencing her own transfigurative experience by feeling blind herself within the confines of the darkness. If you notice the smells in the barn and the kitchen have been enhanced and when she completely immerses herself in the blackness she experinces sounds and odours completely as new in experience and greatly enhanced. Here it the text to the parts I am referring to:

She passed down the wide hall, and through a door at the end. Then she was in the farm premises. The scent of dairy, and of farm-kitchen, and of farm-yard and of leather almost overcame her: but particularly the scent of dairy. They had been scalding out the pans. The flagged passage in front of her was dark, puddled and wet. Light came out from the open kitchen door. She went forward and stood in the doorway. The farm-people were at tea, seated at a little distance from her, round a long, narrow table, in the centre of which stood a white lamp. Ruddy faces, ruddy hands holding food, red mouths working, heads bent over the tea-cups: men, land-girls, boys: it was tea-time, feeding-time. Some faces caught sight of her. Mrs. Wernham, going round behind the chairs with a large black teapot, halting slightly in her walk, was not aware of her for a moment. Then she turned suddenly.

I underlined the key words and also note twice light or white is mentioned since Isabel will soon be emersed in darkness and obscurity as her husband is in his blindness. Then below is the actual experience in the darkness as she progresses into the sightless night. I thought this writing was brilliant:

She pulled on her overshoes, wrapped a large tartan shawl around her, put on a man's felt hat, and ventured out along the causeways of the first yard. It was very dark. The wind was roaring in the great elms behind the outhouses. When she came to the second yard the darkness seemed deeper. She was unsure of her footing. She wished she had brought a lantern. Rain blew against her. Half she liked it, half she felt unwilling to battle.
She reached at last the just visible door of the stable. There was no sign of a light anywhere. Opening the upper half, she looked in: into a simple well of darkness. The smell of horses, and ammonia, and of warmth was startling to her, in that full night. She listened with all her ears, but could hear nothing save the night, and the stirring of a horse.
'Maurice!' she called, softly and musically, though she was afraid. 'Maurice--are you there?'
Nothing came from the darkness. She knew the rain and wind blew in upon the horses, the hot animal life. Feeling it wrong, she entered the stable, and drew the lower half of the door shut, holding the upper part close. She did not stir, because she was aware of the presence of the dark hindquarters of the horses, though she could not see them, and she was afraid. Something wild stirred in her heart.
She listened intensely. Then she heard a small noise in the distance--far away, it seemed--the chink of a pan, and a man's voice speaking a brief word. It would be Maurice, in the other part of the stable. She stood motionless, waiting for him to come through the partition door. The horses were so terrifyingly near to her, in the invisible.
The loud jarring of the inner door-latch made her start; the door was opened. She could hear and feel her husband entering and invisibly passing among the horses near to her, in darkness as they were, actively intermingled. The rather low sound of his voice as he spoke to the horses came velvety to her nerves. How near he was, and how invisible! The darkness seemed to be in a strange swirl of violent life, just upon her. She turned giddy.
Her presence of mind made her call, quietly and musically:
'Maurice! Maurice--dea-ar!'
'Yes,' he answered. 'Isabel?'
She saw nothing, and the sound of his voice seemed to touch her.
'Hello!' she answered cheerfully, straining her eyes to see him. He was still busy, attending to the horses near her, but she saw only darkness. It made her almost desperate.
'Won't you come in, dear?' she said.
'Yes, I'm coming. Just half a minute. Stand over--now! Trap's not come, has it?'
'Not yet,' said Isabel.
His voice was pleasant and ordinary, but it had a slight suggestion of the stable to her. She wished he would come away. Whilst he was so utterly invisible she was afraid of him.
'How's the time?' he asked.
'Not yet six,' she replied. She disliked to answer into the dark. Presently he came very near to her, and she retreated out of doors.
'The weather blows in here,' he said, coming steadily forward, feeling for the doors. She shrank away. At last she could dimly see him.
'Bertie won't have much of a drive,' he said, as he closed the doors.
'He won't indeed!' said Isabel calmly, watching the dark shape at the door.
'Give me your arm, dear,' she said.
She pressed his arm close to her, as she went. But she longed to see him, to look at him. She was nervous. He walked erect, with face rather lifted, but with a curious tentative movement of his powerful, muscular legs. She could feel the clever, careful, strong contact of his feet with the earth, as she balanced against him. For a moment he was a tower of darkness to her, as if he rose out of the earth.

Interesting last line since a few stories I have read of Lawrence's refer to a tower of light for a man and not of darkness. Yes, this line is so significant in this story to my mind and says so much. Amazing writing. Now back in the house - going through the passages back to Isabel's world of sight:

In the house-passage he wavered, and went cautiously, with a curious look of silence about him as he felt for the bench. Then he sat down heavily. He was a man with rather sloping shoulders, but with heavy limbs, powerful legs that seemed to know the earth. His head was small, usually carried high and light. As he bent down to unfasten his gaiters and boots he did not look blind. His hair was brown and crisp, his hands were large, reddish, intelligent, the veins stood out in the wrists; and his thighs and knees seemed massive. When he stood up his face and neck were surcharged with blood, the veins stood out on his temples. She did not look at his blindness.

What a contrast at first to her view of him in the yard with feet planted firmly on the ground. Now in the house he "wavered, and went cautiously".

Isabel was always glad when they had passed through the dividing door into their own regions of repose and beauty. She was a little afraid of him, out there in the animal grossness of the back. His bearing also changed, as he smelt the familiar, indefinable odour that pervaded his wife's surroundings, a delicate, refined scent, very faintly spicy. Perhaps it came from the pot-pourri bowls.

This last part one can see that transition again back into Isabel's world of sight and how unsure the blind man is at first coming back into this world, until he gets his bearings again. Then when he goes upstairs, again he is enveloped in his own world of sightlessness and darkness:

He went away upstairs. She saw him mount into the darkness, unseeing and unchanging. He did not know that the lamps on the upper corridor were unlighted. He went on into the darkness with unchanging step. She heard him in the bathroom.
Pervin moved about almost unconsciously in his familiar surroundings, dark though everything was. He seemed to know the presence of objects before he touched them. It was a pleasure to him to rock thus through a world of things, carried on the flood in a sort of blood-prescience. He did not think much or trouble much. So long as he kept this sheer immediacy of blood-contact with the substantial world he was happy, he wanted no intervention of visual consciousness. In this state there was a certain rich positivity, bordering sometimes on rapture. Life seemed to move in him like a tide lapping, and advancing, enveloping all things darkly. It was a pleasure to stretch forth the hand and meet the unseen object, clasp it, and possess it in pure contact. He did not try to remember, to visualize. He did not want to. The new way of consciousness substituted itself in him.

Here is where the Lawrence idea and philosophy of blood consciousness comes into the story strongly stated. The writing is so poetic and flows as the consciousness does. Wonderfully expressed in this last paragraph!

The rich suffusion of this state generally kept him happy, reaching its culmination in the consuming passion for his wife. But at times the flow would seem to be checked and thrown back. Then it would beat inside him like a tangled sea, and he was tortured in the shattered chaos of his own blood. He grew to dread this arrest, this throw-back, this chaos inside himself, when he seemed merely at the mercy of his own powerful and conflicting elements. How to get some measure of control or surety, this was the question. And when the question rose maddening in him, he would clench his fists as if he would compel the whole universe to submit to him. But it was in vain. He could not even compel himself.

This further expands on the idea and how when he is not intune with the blood consciousness or given over to it his life is then in chaos.

Dark Muse

03-03-2008, 04:50 PM

Janine

03-03-2008, 05:23 PM

DM - be back later and can answer your post then. I am going out now - it is 63 degrees here today - have to take advantage. I need some fresh air!

Janine

03-03-2008, 11:38 PM

Dark Muse

03-04-2008, 12:58 AM

Well, I am back, but too tired now to post futher in ideas that what I posted earlier.
Dark Muse, did you read my last post? It was pretty involved and I thought you would comment directly on some of the points I made in that post. Hopefully tomorrow Quark or Virgil will comment on Lawrence's blood philosophy and other points I was trying to make in my last longer post. For now, until, I read more of the story I don't know what else to post about. Note - I underlined a lot of key words and phrases in that post.

Well I fear admitidly, I cannot really make any coments in regaurds to the blood consciousness theroy which was discussed within your post, becasue I haven't a grasp as to just what it is or what it consitutues so I cannot really evulaute it properly as it is related to the story.

In someways this is true...that Isabel takes on her husband's blindness, but I am not entirely sure it is true at the same time. I think he does become depressed and possibly feels quilty for being blind and not being as he had been and so this may effect Isabel's mood and in this respect she is altered by his blindness. I think she then feels that if she tries harder or is closer to him then all will be in harmony between them. I believe in the passages I quoted it begins to give the man's point of view as to how he feels at times that that balance is disturbed and he and his wife are no longer in harmony with each other. This would be understandable, one person being blind while the other is capable of sight. It would be hard for a seeing person to fully comprehend the invisible world of the sightless.

Yes, that is true, there are ways and instanceas in which there is a speration between them, becasue in many ways they live in two different worlds, and priecive the world in different ways, so there are points in which this does cause strain upon them, and in someways, though she does become of part of her husbands world, she also remains in her own world, and does seem to express certain anxieites.

Here is one of the phrases of which I found quite interesting:

She wanted to be allowed to bear her child in peace, to nod by the fire and drift vaugely, physicaly, from day to day. Maurice was like an ominous thunder-cloud. She had to keep waking up to remember him.

I think in many ways the coming of the child is the center of a light of her anxiety about her situation with her husband. For because of his blindness he very much has to depend upon her, and so as she expreses her worry about caring for her child as well as her husband

The child would occupy her love and attention. Ans then what of Maurice? What would he do? If only she could feel that he too would be at peach and happy when the child came! She did so want to luxuriate in a rich, physical satisfaction of maternity. But the man, what would he do? How could she provide for him, how avert those shattering black moods of his, which destoryed them both.

She addresses her concerns reguarding her husbands depression, and shows she is worried that though they both wanted the baby, he will feel in someways more left out once she has it.

Because of their seclusiveness and keeping to themselves, I think this is true and yet when he is depressed, something else happens to awake a restlessness in each of them. I, therefore, do not think that Isabel is entirely content, in being the 'be all' and 'end all' of her husband's sightless world; I think he also is unhappy at these times. This would be part of that 'chaos' he feels when they are not synchronized. I think in the first year they were in harmony but now reality has set in and they have not maintained this level of intimacy at all times. There are times the slip out of this harmony and then Isabel worries about her husband and he, no doubt, feels somewhat insecure, about his position of being blind.

Yes it is true they do have thier moments of turmoil but really I think they are dealing with it, and I do not think it has caused too big of a wedge between them, at least not yet. Though within the story we can see the begining of worry between them, and concerns about thier relationship with each other.

There was the conversation between Maurice and Bertie towrd the end, addressing Maurice's insecurties:

'She says she's content-only a little troubled about you'

'Why me?'

'Perhaps afraid that you might brood' said Bertie cautiously

'She needn't be afraid of that' He continued to caress the flattend grey head of the cat with his fingers. 'What I am afraid of' he resumed, 'is that she'll find me a dead weight, always aone with me down here'

'I don't think you need think that' said Bertie, though this was what he feared himself.

' I don't know' said Maurice. 'Sometimes I feel it isn't fair that she's saddled with me'

There was also the moment when Bertie had first arrived and he was upstrais listening to them:

They moved away. Pervin hear no more. But a childish sense of desolation had come over him, as he heard thier brisk voices. He seemed shut out-like a child that is left out. He was aimless and exlcuded , he did not know what to do with himself. The helpless desolation came over him. He fumbled nervously as he dressed himself, in a state of childishness. He disliked the Scotch accent in Bertie's speach, and the slight response if found on Isabel's tounge. He disliked the slight purr of conplanceancy in the Scottish speach. He disliked intensely the glib way in which Isabel spoke of thier happiness and nearness. It made him recoil. He was fretful and beside himself like a child, he had almost a chidlish nostalgia to be included the life circle. And at that same time he was a man, dark and powerful and infuriated with his own weakness. By some fatal flaw, he could not be by himself, he had to depend on the support of another. And this very dependence enraged him. He hated Bertie Reid, and at the same time he knew the hatred was nonsense, he knew it was the outcome of his weakness.

Here he is confronted with the fact that he is apart from the world when Isabel's frined comes over, and they can share in the world of sight togehter, something Maurice cannot have with his wife, and he feels the insecurity of this and the accute sense of someone else being able to share a part of his wife's life that he cannot.

Janine

03-04-2008, 03:37 PM

Well I fear admitidly, I cannot really make any coments in regaurds to the blood consciousness theroy which was discussed within your post, becasue I haven't a grasp as to just what it is or what it consitutues so I cannot really evulaute it properly as it is related to the story.

Dark Muse, Sorry to keep you waiting again. Oh, don't fear admittedly, I didn't mean to make you feel that way. I thought you had recalled what was said about it before in one of the previous stories. I find it difficult myself to explain it. I think it was featured some in "Odour Of Chrysanthamums" and I know so in "Horse-Dealer's Daughter" but you may not have joined the group at that point. I had forgotten that, you seem like such a devote now, DM.;) I think Virgil is the best one to explain this aspect of Lawrence's work but the idea was suggested to me by Hira in a recent PM to me about the story. As I was re-reading the story that night I came across that passage the actually used the words and made it so obvious. Only way I can explain it is that the husband embodies the blood-philosophy idea of Lawrence - in other words he relates from the blood and the flesh and not from strickly the intellect. If you notice Bertie they describe as smarter or keener of mind than Maurice. When Maurice goes up to the bathroom he allows this blood consciousness to dominate because he gives into the fact of it and so everything (his existence) flows naturally. Bertie, who cannot connect with the blood consciousness is stiff and contained and remains appart - disconnected from other humans and his own inner blood consiciousness. I think I am close in this explaination but no doubt Virgil will want to add more to it. He knows more than I do verbally. I know more instinctively just what Lawrence means by it. Virgil is busy, no doubt since his mother just had surgery, so let's give him a few days to address this part.

Yes, that is true, there are ways and instanceas in which there is a speration between them, becasue in many ways they live in two different worlds, and priecive the world in different ways, so there are points in which this does cause strain upon them, and in someways, though she does become of part of her husbands world, she also remains in her own world, and does seem to express certain anxieites.

I think this also and the fact that now Maurice cannot enter his wife's sightful world and must remain, in a way, imprisioned in his own dark invisible sightless world. Isabel can however experience the sightless world in the darkness of the barn or otherwise. Therefore the only plane they can meet on is in the world devoid of eye-sight. This does not mean they don't also experience something much deeper and more mysterious now, but sometimes the rapture of this 'other preception' causes them both deep anxiety and stress. This can be well understood.

Here is one of the phrases of which I found quite interesting:

I think in many ways the coming of the child is the center of a light of her anxiety about her situation with her husband. For because of his blindness he very much has to depend upon her, and so as she expreses her worry about caring for her child as well as her husband

Yes, thanks for quoting this. It is quite an interesting passage. If you think of it after the child arrives then the household or family will consist of two sighted people and one unsighted man. Surely the husband and the wife would have their worries and anxieties about that fact. Also the dependency factor is a big one. I am sure Isabel longs for the situation of her maternity to be a natural and normal one but how can it when Maurice is sometimes depressed over his situation.

She addresses her concerns reguarding her husbands depression, and shows she is worried that though they both wanted the baby, he will feel in someways more left out once she has it.

I pretty much said this and agreed with you above.

Yes it is true they do have thier moments of turmoil but really I think they are dealing with it, and I do not think it has caused too big of a wedge between them, at least not yet. Though within the story we can see the begining of worry between them, and concerns about thier relationship with each other.

Yes, I think basically they are dealing with it and they seem truly to love one another. I don't think there is trouble at this point to a major degree but that could change when the child comes along or the child might add to bring them even closer. Remember they lost a child while he was in the war. What hell poor Maurice must have gone through. I think that Lawrence shows here the ravages or the results of the war without actually drawing us into the actual war or the action. I am sure Maurice is only one of many whose lives were drastically changed by the horrors of the First World War. In an offhand way, Lawrence presents war to us. This reminds me of a film I just saw - "Flags of our Fathers" - although some war scenes were shown and were quite graphic much of the movie dealt with the ravages of war - the toll it takes physcologically on the individuals. Blindness would be bad enough but then to have to recall all one went through in a war would also be pretty terrible. If Maurice experiences periods of deep depression one can certainly see how he would have amble cause to feel this way.

There was the conversation between Maurice and Bertie towrd the end, addressing Maurice's insecurties:

Yes, and I think that this would be realistic. I think one would wonder about how scarred one was and how disfigured. I thought that scene was so touching really and showed the Maurice was only human and had his human weaknesses and concerns.

There was also the moment when Bertie had first arrived and he was upstrais listening to them:

Yes, this also shows a realistic Maurice I believe. One can relate to just how he would feel and how insecure knowing now his wife is existing in the intimate world which includes sight and he is deficient in this respect in meeting with her close friend. It would be bad enough the two men might have some sense of rivalry with the wife - not for love but for affection/friendship and therefore with the added factor of Maurice being different than they, then I can well understand his insecure feelings at that moment.

Here he is confronted with the fact that he is apart from the world when Isabel's frined comes over, and they can share in the world of sight togehter, something Maurice cannot have with his wife, and he feels the insecurity of this and the accute sense of someone else being able to share a part of his wife's life that he cannot.

Exactly!.... and you put that so well, DM. Good job on your post. :thumbs_up

This is fun but I hope a few others show up soon.

Dark Muse

03-04-2008, 04:18 PM

Dark Muse, Sorry to keep you waiting again. Oh, don't fear admittedly, I didn't mean to make you feel that way. I thought you had recalled what was said about it before in one of the previous stories. I find it difficult myself to explain it. I think it was featured some in "Odour Of Chrysanthamums" and I know so in "Horse-Dealer's Daughter" but you may not have joined the group at that point. I had forgotten that, you seem like such a devote now, DM.;) I think Virgil is the best one to explain this aspect of Lawrence's work but the idea was suggested to me by Hira in a recent PM to me about the story. As I was re-reading the story that night I came across that passage the actually used the words and made it so obvious. Only way I can explain it is that the husband embodies the blood-philosophy idea of Lawrence - in other words he relates from the blood and the flesh and not from strickly the intellect. If you notice Bertie they describe as smarter or keener of mind than Maurice. When Maurice goes up to the bathroom he allows this blood consciousness to dominate because he gives into the fact of it and so everything (his existence) flows naturally. Bertie, who cannot connect with the blood consciousness is stiff and contained and remains appart - disconnected from other humans and his own inner blood consiciousness. I think I am close in this explaination but no doubt Virgil will want to add more to it. He knows more than I do verbally. I know more instinctively just what Lawrence means by it. Virgil is busy, no doubt since his mother just had surgery, so let's give him a few days to address this part.

I came into the group right after you finnished up the story
Odour Of Chrysanthamums

I will eagery await to hear what Virgil has to say upon the subject, but your own explination did much to help my understanding on the subject. I can see what you mean in the comparrioson between Bertie and Maurice.

Bertie is talked about as being much more of the intellectual and seems unconected with the physical world in someways, both in his lack of ablity to connect with people, as well as well you cannot picture Bertie getting his hands dirty.

While Maurice, though he is said to be more slow, and is portrayed as perhaps not being as witty as Bertie is, he enjoys phyiscal labor, and has a strong connection to working with the earth. This could be a result of his blindness, as the need to really be hands on with the earth to reassure of himself of its exisitinces, and having to live in a different world, than Bertie, while Bertie might take these things for granted, sense he is part of the seeing world, there is the one comparrison Isabel gives:

Bertie was a barrister and a man of letters, a Scotchman of the intellectual type, quick, ironical, sentimental, and on his knees before the woman he adored but did not want to marry. Maurice Pervin was different. He came of good old country family-the Grange was not a very great distance from Oxford. He was passionate, snsitive, perhaps over-senstive, wincing, a big fellow with heavy limbs and a forehead that flushed painfully. For his mind was slow, as if drugged by the strong provincial blood that beat in his veins. He was very senstive to his own mental slowness, his feelings being quick and acute. So that he was just the oppisite of Bertie whose mind was much quicker than his emotions which were not so very fine.

I underlined what I thought were the key phrases, Maurice is portrayed as being much more emotional than Bertie is as Bertie lives more in the world of the mind, or thoughts and ideas, while Maurice lives closer to the earth, and more in the physical world before him.

Perhaps this is do to the fact that the world at large, is lost to Maurice becasue he cannot see it he can only know what is directly under him. While Bertie perhaps does not see what is right before him, becaue he can look far ahead of him. He is not so much tied to the present.

I think this also and the fact that now Maurice cannot enter his wife's sightful world and must remain, in a way, imprisioned in his own dark invisible sightless world. Isabel can however experience the sightless world in the darkness of the barn or otherwise. Therefore the only plane they can meet on is in the world devoid of eye-sight. This does not mean they don't also experience something much deeper and more mysterious now, but sometimes the rapture of this 'other preception' causes them both deep anxiety and stress. This can be well understood.

Yes that is a good point. In someways Isabel has a bit of an unfair advantage over her husband, there are ways in which a person can prohbiit thier sight, and yet there is know way a blind person can see. So his wife can in someways, become a part of his world, and to a degree experince what he experinces, but she has the knoweledge of being able to escape that as well. She is not trapped within it forever, and it allows the wife to become apart of both worlds, while her husband must only stay within his own dark world.

Yes, thanks for quoting this. It is quite an interesting passage. If you think of it after the child arrives then the household or family will consist of two sighted people and one unsighted man. Surely the husband and the wife would have their worries and anxieties about that fact. Also the dependency factor is a big one. I am sure Isabel longs for the situation of her maternity to be a natural and normal one but how can it when Maurice is sometimes depressed over his situation.

Yes this is quite true, and I think Isabel might have anxieites over wondering wheather having the child will lesson her husbands depression of if it will worsen it, and how she is going to find a balance between the two. The child could put an extra strain upon some of the struggles they are having now.

I also found it interesting that as Isabel is getting ready to have her child, Maurice, begins to view himself as a child becasue of his dependency and sense of helplessness.

Yes, I think basically they are dealing with it and they seem truly to love one another. I don't think there is trouble at this point to a major degree but that could change when the child comes along or the child might add to bring them even closer. Remember they lost a child while he was in the war. What hell poor Maurice must have gone through. I think that Lawrence shows here the ravages or the results of the war without actually drawing us into the actual war or the action. I am sure Maurice is only one of many whose lives were drastically changed by the horrors of the First World War. In an offhand way, Lawrence presents war to us. This reminds me of a film I just saw - "Flags of our Fathers" - although some war scenes were shown and were quite graphic much of the movie dealt with the ravages of war - the toll it takes physcologically on the individuals. Blindness would be bad enough but then to have to recall all one went through in a war would also be pretty terrible. If Maurice experiences periods of deep depression one can certainly see how he would have amble cause to feel this way.

Yes, you make a good point about the war, it is true, within this story we do not need any actual secnes of account of the war to see just how it can effect and ravish the lives of the people.

As you get the impression, from the fact that they did try to have a child before, and how they are dealing with their problems now, that they were always a happy loving couple but now the affects of the war has reached into thier lives and has threatened thier exisitince together. Put a marr on thier happiness, and what could have been the picture of a "perfect" family. In the way that Maurice has been scared, there has been a scar put on thier happiness and life together. Something that will never go away even if it can be overcome or worked around.

I wonder with the discussion of Maurice's depression within the story, and the dark moods that sometimes come over him, was there knowledge of PTSD (Post tramatic stress disorder) doing the time period in which the story was written?

Yes, and I think that this would be realistic. I think one would wonder about how scarred one was and how disfigured. I thought that scene was so touching really and showed the Maurice was only human and had his human weaknesses and concerns.

Yes that is very true. It was a very real moment, as well as the fact, that even though they do not really care for each other. Maurcie is able in a way to confinde in Bertie, what perhaps, he fears to speak of with his wife. He can share the fears with the unlikely ally, he does not want Isabel to know he has.

Janine

03-04-2008, 05:45 PM

I came into the group right after you finnished up the story
Odour Of Chrysanthamums
A shame you missed that one - it was a good one. You might want to read it on your own.
Geez, DM, haha...you are writing posts as long as mine now. Good for you!:thumbs_up

I will eagery await to hear what Virgil has to say upon the subject, but your own explination did much to help my understanding on the subject. I can see what you mean in the comparrioson between Bertie and Maurice.

Yes, and if I talk to him on PM him, I will point it out to him, so he does not miss it. There is definitely a difference in the two men, as you talk about below. This difference is often seen in Lawrence's work and was definitely born from the fact his two parents were so very different and related to life differently. His mother would have represented the more intellectual aspect and his father actually the blood consciousness and the earthy aspect. There has been tons written on Lawrence's blood consciousness idea in his work and what formed it.

Bertie is talked about as being much more of the intellectual and seems unconected with the physical world in someways, both in his lack of ablity to connect with people, as well as well you cannot picture Bertie getting his hands dirty.

Good, this is correct. Maurice has a greater affinity with the earth and the natural elements and his innate feelings and not his itellectual reasoning. He is more instinctive and not so 'guarded' as Bertie is.

While Maurice, though he is said to be more slow, and is portrayed as perhaps not being as witty as Bertie is, he enjoys phyiscal labor, and has a strong connection to working with the earth. This could be a result of his blindness, as the need to really be hands on with the earth to reassure of himself of its exisitinces, and having to live in a different world, than Bertie, while Bertie might take these things for granted, sense he is part of the seeing world, there is the one comparrison Isabel gives:

"physical" is a key word here. Maurice is more physical and so this has been greater enhanced by his very blindness. You are right - Bertie takes his sight for granted, as most of us do. Good quote you provided.

I underlined what I thought were the key phrases, Maurice is portrayed as being much more emotional than Bertie is as Bertie lives more in the world of the mind, or thoughts and ideas, while Maurice lives closer to the earth, and more in the physical world before him.

Yes, definitely so - more emotional and more connected to the earth and to his wife. This connection is so enhanced it can become too much at times....too overwhelming. Again - "physical world" is a good thing to point out. Bertie acts on intellect and reason whereas Maurice acts on instinct and animal motivation. If you notice he is more intune with the animals in the barn and out buildings. He is more intune with the smells and the darkness and the feel of the night. He 'feels' life. Bertie has not to ability to connect at this level and he has no concept of what it is like either. This 'feeling' is the blood-consciousness idea.

Perhaps this is do to the fact that the world at large, is lost to Maurice becasue he cannot see it he can only know what is directly under him. While Bertie perhaps does not see what is right before him, becaue he can look far ahead of him. He is not so much tied to the present.

True and well put. Interesting thought.

Yes that is a good point. In someways Isabel has a bit of an unfair advantage over her husband, there are ways in which a person can prohbiit thier sight, and yet there is know way a blind person can see. So his wife can in someways, become a part of his world, and to a degree experince what he experinces, but she has the knoweledge of being able to escape that as well. She is not trapped within it forever, and it allows the wife to become apart of both worlds, while her husband must only stay within his own dark world.

Exactly - Isabel can live in either world but Maurice cannot. Isabel can escape but Maurice is trapped forever in his sightless world.

Yes this is quite true, and I think Isabel might have anxieites over wondering wheather having the child will lesson her husbands depression of if it will worsen it, and how she is going to find a balance between the two. The child could put an extra strain upon some of the struggles they are having now.

Absolutely agree. Hey, DM, we sure are agreeing a lot on this one...hehe..;) :lol: Glad you don't hate this woman. I picked the story out with you in-mind this time. I didn't want you to hate the character...;)

I also found it interesting that as Isabel is getting ready to have her child, Maurice, begins to view himself as a child becasue of his dependency and sense of helplessness.

That is an interesting thought. I think that maybe men who have sight might also feel a little like this at times and also feel a little jealous of their wive's maternity or a little threatened. I have read it is so with some couples.

Yes, you make a good point about the war, it is true, within this story we do not need any actual secnes of account of the war to see just how it can effect and ravish the lives of the people.

I kind of stole that from actual writings of Lawrence's about including ideas of war or the background being the atmosphere of the wartime and yet him not directly mentioning it. He did this in "Women in Love". We discussed it somewhat in that thread awhile back.

As you get the impression, from the fact that they did try to have a child before, and how they are dealing with their problems now, that they were always a happy loving couple but now the affects of the war has reached into thier lives and has threatened thier exisitince together. Put a marr on thier happiness, and what could have been the picture of a "perfect" family. In the way that Maurice has been scared, there has been a scar put on thier happiness and life together. Something that will never go away even if it can be overcome or worked around.

Plus they must have anxiety knowing they lost the first child. Yes, the war did put a scar or a mar on the relationship. It had to. I think one would not be human if it did not have some effect. It won't go away ever, they must learn to deal with it. That is all anyone can hope to do.

I wonder with the discussion of Maurice's depression within the story, and the dark moods that sometimes come over him, was there knowledge of PTSD (Post tramatic stress disorder) doing the time period in which the story was written?

I don't know if that was recognised then but I think that physcological disorders such as that were being highly explored during Lawrence's time. I would venture to say that this man was suffering some effects of that but oddly enough from things I have read many of the men in WWI or II would not really open up and talk to their families about their wartime experiences. I think, as a sort of survival mechanism, they just stored it away in the deep recesses of their minds, otherwise they would be daily haunted by unspeakable things they had seen. I don't think anyone could go through a war and be in combat without the after-effects of that experience and without periods of slipping into depression; compile this with the fact, that daily, this man, Maurice, is reminded of it due to his disability and he has more than enough reason for his reactions at times.

Yes that is very true. It was a very real moment, as well as the fact, that even though they do not really care for each other. Maurcie is able in a way to confinde in Bertie, what perhaps, he fears to speak of with his wife. He can share the fears with the unlikely ally, he does not want Isabel to know he has.

Oddly enough this scene seems to parallel a part of "Sons and Lovers" when Clara's husband and Paul are as mortal enemies but then eventually the two men see things differently and actually become close and confide in one another. It is as though they both recognise the fact they are both suffering from some element lacking in their lives - some flaw they can't seem to escape from. I guess they find solace in this and so eventually reach out to one another. Actually, Paul befriends Claira's husband. Her the befriending is being instigated by Maurice. In both cases these men are deficient in some way and unable to connect to other humans, women in particular. They both lack wholeness.

Dark Muse

03-04-2008, 07:35 PM

A shame you missed that one - it was a good one. You might want to read it on your own.

I might have read it before, I know for school once I had to read a story about Chrysanthamums, but I cannot swear it was the some one, as I do not remember that well, but I shall defninetly like to read it on my own sometime.

Yes, definitely so - more emotional and more connected to the earth and to his wife. This connection is so enhanced it can become too much at times....too overwhelming. Again - "physical world" is a good thing to point out. Bertie acts on intellect and reason whereas Maurice acts on instinct and animal motivation. If you notice he is more intune with the animals in the barn and out buildings. He is more intune with the smells and the darkness and the feel of the night. He 'feels' life. Bertie has not to ability to connect at this level and he has no concept of what it is like either. This 'feeling' is the blood-consciousness idea.

Yes, I got that feeling of perhaps being a bit overwheling by the fact that he was called over-senstive, and that it was descibred as being wincing at times. As this seems to indicate that his connection perhaps both to the physical world and his world and his wife, can be almost painful at times, he is so reliant upon it.

Yes, I also noticed how much he seems to like to escape into the barn when he needs to get away. It seems to give him a certain peace to be there among the animals, and in his own dark world, without being confronted by the world of sight.

It is true about Bertie, he comes off as being almost insenstive in someways, but I do not get the feeling he does this on purpose, but that he is just simply clueless to how he comes off in his inablity to really sympathize with someone elses point of view.

Absolutely agree. Hey, DM, we sure are agreeing a lot on this one...hehe..;) :lol: Glad you don't hate this woman. I picked the story out with you in-mind this time. I didn't want you to hate the character...;)

I know it is scary, isn't it? LOL, really I did not truly dislike any of the chars in this story, perhaps I was not the biggist fan of Bertie, but I don't really hate him.

That is an interesting thought. I think that maybe men who have sight might also feel a little like this at times and also feel a little jealous of their wive's maternity or a little threatened. I have read it is so with some couples.

Yes that makes sense, as they now have to share some of the attention and affection which once was soely theres.

I don't know if that was recognised then but I think that physcological disorders such as that were being highly explored during Lawrence's time. I would venture to say that this man was suffering some effects of that but oddly enough from things I have read many of the men in WWI or II would not really open up and talk to their families about their wartime experiences. I think, as a sort of survival mechanism, they just stored it away in the deep recesses of their minds, otherwise they would be daily haunted by unspeakable things they had seen. I don't think anyone could go through a war and be in combat without the after-effects of that experience and without periods of slipping into depression; compile this with the fact, that daily, this man, Maurice, is reminded of it due to his disability and he has more than enough reason for his reactions at times.

Yes, this is very true, and this is something of which I have first hand experince with. My boyfriend was in Iraq, and was sent home becasue of injuries he sustained, and he suffers from PTSD, and infact, though he is not completly blind, one of the affects of his injuries, as his vision. He has very low vision now, in such a way that it does impact his daily life and a lot of some of the things he use to be able to do, he cannot anylonger

Oddly enough this scene seems to parallel a part of "Sons and Lovers" when Clara's husband and Paul are as mortal enemies but then eventually the two men see things differently and actually become close and confide in one another. It is as though they both recognise the fact they are both suffering from some element lacking in their lives - some flaw they can't seem to escape from. I guess they find solace in this and so eventually reach out to one another. Actually, Paul befriends Claira's husband. Her the befriending is being instigated by Maurice. In both cases these men are deficient in some way and unable to connect to other humans, women in particular. They both lack wholeness.

Very good point, yes that is quite true, nice job pointing that out. Both the men are lacking something in the world, and it seems that what the one lacks, the other has, though in this case, I am not so sure that Maurice's attempted friendship, is going to be fully returned by Bertie.

From the first the two men did not like each other. Isabel felt that they ought to get on together. But they did not. She felt that if only each could have the clue to the other there would be such rare understanding between them. It did not come off, however. Bertie adopted a slightly ironical attitude, very offensive to Maurice, who returned the Scotch irony with English resentment, a resentment which deepend sometimes into stupid hatred.

I found it a bit intresting how Isabel felt so certain that they should be friends with each other, there is almost a sort of prophacy in her statement that

She felt that if only each could have the clue to the other there would be such rare understanding between them.

As this seems to suggest that secen that is to come later in the story, when the two finaly do connect to each other.

Quark

03-04-2008, 08:39 PM

This story reminds me of Virginia Woolf's book, The Waves. Just like in that novel, we have these people with vastly different personalities all wishing they could have what each other have. Bertie wants to be as intimate and sexual as Maurice can be, and Maurice wants to be as interesting and charming as Bertie. Isabel wants both men, and she wants to be a mother.

I think someone else mentioned the ending being surprising, and I have to agree. I really didn't expect this one to end with a reconciliation and an almost happy ending. Everything seemed to be moving toward crisis. It really had a tragic look to it until the very end.

Virgil

03-04-2008, 09:08 PM

Geez, DM, haha...you are writing posts as long as mine now. Good for you!:thumbs_up ...
Absolutely agree. Hey, DM, we sure are agreeing a lot on this one...hehe..;) :lol:
Hey you two are getting along way too well this time around. That's not allowed. ;) You're supposed to be disagreeing so i can come in and break the tie. :p :lol:

Dark Muse

03-04-2008, 09:43 PM

LOL sorry Virgil

Janine

03-04-2008, 11:30 PM

Hey you two are getting along way too well this time around. That's not allowed. ;) You're supposed to be disagreeing so i can come in and break the tie. :p :lol:

Hahahaha:lol: Yeah right.....I kind of like the peace....don't pay attention to him, DM! ;) :lol:

This story reminds me of Virginia Woolf's book, The Waves. Just like in that novel, we have these people with vastly different personalities all wishing they could have what each other have. Bertie wants to be as intimate and sexual as Maurice can be, and Maurice wants to be as interesting and charming as Bertie. Isabel wants both men, and she wants to be a mother.

What??? are you joking, Quark? I am not too sure about this post of yours. :brow: :confused: I would say that is simplifying things a bit. I didn't read "The Waves" so I can't really compare the two. I don't see that Bertie has a desire to be intimate and sexual as Maurice is at all. Where are you getting that idea from, Quark? I don't think Isabel wants both men in quite the same way. Bertie is not even described as being very physically appealing.

I think someone else mentioned the ending being surprising, and I have to agree. I really didn't expect this one to end with a reconciliation and an almost happy ending. Everything seemed to be moving toward crisis. It really had a tragic look to it until the very end.

Yes, I think it was actually Pensive who said that, or it might have been Dark Muse. Yes, the ending did take a surprising left turn. I liked it doing so - kind of woke up the reader and made you take notice.;)

Dark Muse

03-05-2008, 02:23 AM

What??? are you joking, Quark? I am not too sure about this post of yours. :brow: :confused: I would say that is simplifying things a bit. I didn't read "The Waves" so I can't really compare the two. I don't see that Bertie has a desire to be intimate and sexual as Maurice is at all. Where are you getting that idea from, Quark? I don't think Isabel wants both men in quite the same way. Bertie is not even described as being very physically appealing.

Though I do not think she wants both men in the same way, I really do not think that she has any desire, attraction to Bertie, as she even says, that she patronizes him, and has contempt for him. But at the same time, I can kind of see what Quark is saying. She wants different things form both men. She still wants her friendship with Bertie, and she wants his worldiness, his intellect and perhaps someone to share in the world of sight with her.

But she wants the close intimacy that Maurice can give her as well. But I do think that she intends to keep her relationship with Bertie completely platonic.

And there is one point in which Bertie says:

He was ashamed of himself, becasue he could not marry, could not apporach women physicaly. He wanted to do so. But could not. At the center of him he was afriad, helplessly and even brutally afraid. He had given up hope, had ceased to exepct any more that he would escape his own weakness.

This seems to express that he does have the desire to form more normal and intimate relastionships, but cannot get over his anxiety to do so.

Yes, I think it was actually Pensive who said that, or it might have been Dark Muse. Yes, the ending did take a surprising left turn. I liked it doing so - kind of woke up the reader and made you take notice.;)

LOL I said the ending was creepy

Quark

03-05-2008, 03:16 PM

What??? are you joking, Quark? I am not too sure about this post of yours. :brow: :confused: I would say that is simplifying things a bit. I didn't read "The Waves" so I can't really compare the two. I don't see that Bertie has a desire to be intimate and sexual as Maurice is at all. Where are you getting that idea from, Quark? I don't think Isabel wants both men in quite the same way. Bertie is not even described as being very physically appealing.

Well, yeah Isabel doesn't want both of them for the same reason. She's much more physically attracted to Maurice; but, let's face it, Maurice is a bit of a stick in the mud. He can hardly carry on a civil conversation for more than a few words. Bertie is the much more talkative, friendly sort of man that Isabel would like to talk to. Which would be great for Bertie except the fact that he feels emasculated by his own timidity. And, he wants to find some real intimacy. Lawrence phrases it like this:

He was ashamed of himself, because he could not marry, could not approach women physically. He wanted to do so. But he could not. At the centre of him he was afraid, helplessly and even brutally afraid. He had given up hope, had ceased to expect any more that he could escape his own weakness. Hence he was a brilliant and successful barrister, also litterateur of high repute, a rich man, and a great social success. At the centre he felt himself neuter, nothing...She [Isabel] looked at his dark grey eyes, with their uncanny, almost childlike intuition, and she loved him. He understood amazingly--but she had no fear of his understanding. As a man she patronized him.

Maurice, in his turn, has his own problems. He wants Isabel, but she's busy being a mom and talking to Bertie.

So, concisely, that's why I'm saying there's this unhappy triangle of unfulfilled desires.

LOL I said the ending was creepy

The end is kind of creepy isn't it. The whole Bertie feeling up Maurice's eye socket was pretty weird; but, at the same time, I thought it worked to show them connecting.

Janine

03-05-2008, 03:48 PM

Though I do not think she wants both men in the same way, I really do not think that she has any desire, attraction to Bertie, as she even says, that she patronizes him, and has contempt for him. But at the same time, I can kind of see what Quark is saying. She wants different things form both men. She still wants her friendship with Bertie, and she wants his worldiness, his intellect and perhaps someone to share in the world of sight with her.

Yeah, but before Quark says Isabel wants both men; Q stated this:
Quote by Quark:

Bertie wants to be as intimate and sexual as Maurice can be, and Maurice wants to be as interesting and charming as Bertie. Isabel wants both men, and she wants to be a mother.

I don't think this is true at all. Maurice does not desire to be like Bertie, nor Bertie like Maurice. It may be possible Bertie would like being able to connect with women, but he does not desire to take on the role of Maurice. At least I don't see it that way at all. But then who knows. I still think to think that way is projecting too much into what they desire.

But she wants the close intimacy that Maurice can give her as well. But I do think that she intends to keep her relationship with Bertie completely platonic.

Definitely agree......oh no, DM, we are agreeing again.;) :lol:

And there is one point in which Bertie says:

I didn't requote that, but it is a good one to point out. I see Quark quoted the same part but with a few more lines. This passage says a great deal about Bertie.

This seems to express that he does have the desire to form more normal and intimate relastionships, but cannot get over his anxiety to do so.

Yes, and I think he is pychologically deficient in being able to connect intimately with a woman. He wanted it but could not achieve it.

LOL I said the ending was creepy

Yes, Dark Muse, true, you did say that it was 'creepy', but it was Pensive who said it was a surprise ending - in post #1092

Quote by Pensive:

Last night, I managed to read the story. Really liked it a lot though of course it did ruin my predictions that I had created in my mind's eye. The ending was totally unexpected for me as I had not expected the two men one of whom resented the other who never let the chance of mocking him pass to be friends again. But the whole scene in the end, the start of their 'friendship' and the feelings of Bertie I guess made up the most interesting part of the story, unexpected though it might be for me. Sometimes surprises are good too.

Well, yeah Isabel doesn't want both of them for the same reason. She's much more physically attracted to Maurice; but, let's face it, Maurice is a bit of a stick in the mud. He can hardly carry on a civil conversation for more than a few words. Bertie is the much more talkative, friendly sort of man that Isabel would like to talk to. Which would be great for Bertie except the fact that he feels emasculated by his own timidity. And, he wants to find some real intimacy. Lawrence phrases it like this:
Ok, now is you turn, Quark, sorry I did not post last night. We had a big storm here and I had to shut down early. I don't take chances after I had a modem burned out from one thunderstorm.
Yes, I would suppose that Maurice is a bit of a stick in the mud. He seems to want Isabel all to himself and he is of course somewhat insecure when she does not indulge him, giving her full attention on him. In someways it is true he acts as a child now and yet the promise of a real child entering their lives is probably a big factor in complicating the couple's life. I think normal couples feel a little uneasy at times about the approach of a third person in their marriage and the child is that addition they will have to adjust to. It will no longer be an exclusive household of just two lovers.
Yes, Bertie definitely represents to Lawrenc the other aspect of the intellectual/logical thinker, such as Lawrence's own mother. His father corresponds so much more to his father who related to life in a much more visceral/physical way.

Maurice, in his turn, has his own problems. He wants Isabel, but she's busy being a mom and talking to Bertie.

Exactly and now he is feeling threatened to be left out of his wife's seeing world. Soon the child will share that 'seeing' world as well and so he will definitely be feeling some bit of exclusion. For now when Bertie and Isabel converse at the table he is not of their 'seeing' world. It is understandable that after a time he can't relate and therefore retreats to the barn to immerse himself in his own 'sightless' world again.

So, concisely, that's why I'm saying there's this unhappy triangle of unfulfilled desires.

Yes, this I agree upon. But it is not a triangle that will last past the short visit of Bertie I believe, unless Bertie makes a point of coming often to see Isabel. I feel that the ending is, as Dark Muse has pointed out, scared Bertie away somewhat. I guess time will tell, and we will never know.;)

The end is kind of creepy isn't it. The whole Bertie feeling up Maurice's eye socket was pretty weird; but, at the same time, I thought it worked to show them connecting.

It felt shocking to me. But I think that if it were an experience with a blind person I knew I would feel repulsion and shock at first, so that I think Lawrence now introducing this part into the story and so late in the story is achieving just what he intended it to achieve. He has not included the reader in the experience of being presented with something truly ugly and something which was brought about by the horror of war. Like I said before, there is an element of war in this story and yet Lawrence adeptly has not mentioned the word that I know of. He only said "Flanders" which conjures up enough horror in our minds if we have seen films/documentaries of the First World War. The shunken eye sockets and the deep scar are symbols in this story of the horror of war and it's effect on humanity. I think the writing is quite brilliant in this last part.

Dark Muse

03-05-2008, 07:03 PM

I don't think this is true at all. Maurice does not desire to be like Bertie, nor Bertie like Maurice. It may be possible Bertie would like being able to connect with women, but he does not desire to take on the role of Maurice. At least I don't see it that way at all. But then who knows. I still think to think that way is projecting too much into what they desire.

Though I do not think that Maurice wants to be like Bertie, as it has been discussed I do think that Bertie does wish he could have more normal relationships. Perhaps not to be just like Maurice is, and I really do not think he would want to try and go after Isabel.

And didn't say somewhere that they were cousins?

But I think he would like to have the ablity to have the kind of relationship that Maurice and Isabel have.

Janine

03-05-2008, 07:10 PM

Though I do not think that Maurice wants to be like Bertie, as it has been discussed I do think that Bertie does wish he could have more normal relationships. Perhaps not to be just like Maurice is, and I really do not think he would want to try and go after Isabel.
I agree with that.

And didn't say somewhere that they were cousins?

I don't recall the mention of cousins. Whose cousins were they? I will review the text.
But I think he would like to have the ablity to have the kind of relationship that Maurice and Isabel have.

Probably he would, but not to emulate Maurice. Bertie would like a connection to women but can't achieve it because of something emotionally deficient within himself.

How odd Lawrence would call him Bertie. Lawrence's nickname while growing up was Bert.

Dark Muse

03-05-2008, 07:53 PM

I don't recall the mention of cousins. Whose cousins were they? I will review the text.

Here it is:

She sighed with fear. But this time Bertie Reid wrote to Isabel. He was her old friend, a second or third cousin, a Scotchman, and she was a Scotchwoman.

Probably he would, but not to emulate Maurice. Bertie would like a connection to women but can't achieve it because of something emotionally deficient within himself.

Yes I agree with that, I think he would want it, but only for his own personal satifaction.

How odd Lawrence would call him Bertie. Lawrence's nickname while growing up was Bert.

That is interesting

Virgil

03-05-2008, 08:46 PM

Dark Muse

03-05-2008, 08:58 PM

*gives Virgil a pat on the back*

Janine

03-05-2008, 09:25 PM

Oh how depressing. You three are so far in front of me. I have no way to catch up. :( I'm just too tired. I wanted to finish The Name of the Rose and get into Dubliners but I'll never gtet there. :bawling:

Oh Virgil, so sorry - our little brains just got so full of great ideas we could not hold back. If you miss this story, I will discuss it with you anytime. It is only the 5th of the month though; we did get pretty far, didn't we. I think if when you can find the time, you were to read the posts and then add your bit that would be great. I was hoping you could give us some personal experience with living with a blind person since your father went blind at an older age. I am sure you have good first hand insight into what is is like for the person one loves.

Do you mean to tell me you are still discussing "Name of the Rose" - did you finish reading it yet? I commented briefly in "Dubliners", but guess what? I can seem to locate my book. Are the stories on this site, do you know? I should check that out. Are you also still discussing "The Aeneid? If so you get a pat on the back from me,;) too!

I am kind of bogged down myself, trying to discuss "Tale of Two Cities", no time limit; Chekhov - that is going well with "Misery" and soon we will also discuss "Oh! The Public". Chekhov stories seems simplier and shorter than L stories, so we are doing two this month. I want to get back to listening to the second half of WIL on my MP3 player; remember I had put that on hold? I was going to go back and get the audiobook of "The Name of the Rose" tonight, but I am too tired out and it is late. Library closes at 9:00. Trouble is one of the tapes is messed up and won't play right so I don't know if I should just abandon that idea for now. Maybe I have enough on my plate without worrying about that book, too.

Pensive

03-06-2008, 06:26 AM

I am sorry guys for the delay in posting. Now I have tried I go through all these posts, but I would have to say I had to skim a little bit (or probably quite a bit) so don't be angry at me if I have missed something. :p

Bertie wants to be as intimate and sexual as Maurice can be, and Maurice wants to be as interesting and charming as Bertie. Isabel wants both men, and she wants to be a mother.

By what I have read in the story, I get no hint that Maurice and Bertie want to be like each other. As for Isabel wanting both men, yes, of course she does but I think in different ways. As someone pointed out here that she probably wants Bertie in a most platonic way, I woulld agree with it, though of course who knows what's going on deep inside their minds as Janine puts it too. As far as I can see in the story, it doesn't seem like that though.

Exactly and now he is feeling threatened to be left out of his wife's seeing world. Soon the child will share that 'seeing' world as well and so he will definitely be feeling some bit of exclusion. For now when Bertie and Isabel converse at the table he is not of their 'seeing' world. It is understandable that after a time he can't relate and therefore retreats to the barn to immerse himself in his own 'sightless' world again.

Very well-put. Did this paragraph bring tears in somebody's eyes? It really made me feel bad for Maurice.

Like I said before, there is an element of war in this story and yet Lawrence adeptly has not mentioned the word that I know of. He only said "Flanders" which conjures up enough horror in our minds if we have seen films/documentaries of the First World War. The shunken eye sockets and the deep scar are symbols in this story of the horror of war and it's effect on humanity.

I am not sure if I think so (Cheer up Virgil, you can take it as a disagreement :p) though of course it's fascinating to find deeper meaning or different books symbolizing something else.

I think the writing is quite brilliant in this last part.

Yes, here I whole-heartedly agree with you! :)

How odd Lawrence would call him Bertie. Lawrence's nickname while growing up was Bert.

Now that's a really interesting piece of information you provided us, Janine. Can it be that Bertie was influenced by Bert (Lawrence himself)? The story might be related to some part of Lawrence's own story, can it be? Now these are questions I have been forced to ask myself....we have seen that in places Lawrence has used a part of 'himself' in his stories....I wonder if it can be over here too....Hmmm.

Virgil

03-06-2008, 08:29 AM

Hey I just read it last night. First reading so I'm not up on all the points. I won't get into real detail until I read it again. So comments are just initial reactions. I could change my mind later. ;)

By what I have read in the story, I get no hint that Maurice and Bertie want to be like each other. As for Isabel wanting both men, yes, of course she does but I think in different ways. As someone pointed out here that she probably wants Bertie in a most platonic way, I woulld agree with it, though of course who knows what's going on deep inside their minds as Janine puts it too. As far as I can see in the story, it doesn't seem like that though.

I agree with Pensy. I don't catch the any sexuality between Isabel and Bertie. I find Isabel completely in love and devoted to Maurice.

I am not sure if I think so (Cheer up Virgil, you can take it as a disagreement :p) though of course it's fascinating to find deeper meaning or different books symbolizing something else.
Oh it wasn't me who said anything about the war. The war is a factor in the story, but I'm not sure how much of a factor. The only factor it seems to be for me is that it has heightened Maurice's insight into life. I don't really see this story as anti war or having anti war implications. So I lean more to Pensy's view.

Now that's a really interesting piece of information you provided us, Janine. Can it be that Bertie was influenced by Bert (Lawrence himself)? The story might be related to some part of Lawrence's own story, can it be? Now these are questions I have been forced to ask myself....we have seen that in places Lawrence has used a part of 'himself' in his stories....I wonder if it can be over here too....Hmmm.
Very interesting he calls Lawrence calls him Bertie. Yes, his nickname was Bertie. But I found this character to be almost completely based on Bertram Russell, like I mentioned a few pages back. His full name is Bertie Reid, almost sounds like it. And it is somewhat suggested he's homosexual, like Bertram Russell. If you can find that post I wrote a few pages back you'll see that Lawrence and Russell were friends until they had this famous falling out, and it was somewhat over Russell's homosexuality. The Lawrence/Russell relationship obviously is important in this story, so i'll have to dig up that famous letter. I think I quoted it way back in this thread for another story or perhaps it was in the Women In Love thread. But it is very significant to this story.

Dark Muse

03-06-2008, 12:30 PM

Oh it wasn't me who said anything about the war. The war is a factor in the story, but I'm not sure how much of a factor. The only factor it seems to be for me is that it has heightened Maurice's insight into life. I don't really see this story as anti war or having anti war implications. So I lean more to Pensy's view.

Well I think the story shows the simple reality of the after-math of war, though I do not think it is ment to be political in anyway, but it gives the point of view of one family that will forever be affected by war.

Janine

03-06-2008, 03:17 PM

Well I think the story shows the simple reality of the after-math of war, though I do not think it is ment to be political in anyway, but it gives the point of view of one family that will forever be affected by war.

Hi Everyone - wow, all showed up today, great!

Yes, DM,and when one family member is affected by war or even some other disability that wasn't caused by a war - maybe an accident or illness - then the whole family is affected. There is a common syndrome, whereby the disabled person has a sense of 'guilt', and can't always get into the center of that guilt or name it. There can be various reasons they feel this profound 'guilt'. Maybe they feel, if only they could have prevented themselves from being 'damaged', they would not have hurt their loved ones. I think in this case, when Maurice becomes depressed, he feels this and he realises his impact on Isabel's life, and now he must also feel it even more with the anticipation of being a parent, a blind parent as it turned out. Maybe Maurice feels he will be inadequate for his child, as well. I really feel for his concerns and his sadness. It can't be an easy thing to deal with. His life now has 'limitations' and in someways, he knows he must depend on his wife. I think if one has experienced this part of life - being faced with disability and knowing now, that they were not as they had once been, then there is a feeling of inadequecy; it may not be evident daily, but it surfaces from time to time...definitely....and it never truly goes away. In this way I felt the war was a background to the story but definitely not a key factor. I felt that Maurice could also have been injured in an accident - maybe a pit accident or something else and this would be similiar, however I think the fact that Lawrence did write that he had been injured at "Flanders" brought this war idea into the story. I think Lawrence intentionally did this in this story and also in WIL. Lawrence, himself stated in the 'Introduction' to "Women in Love" that the novel was written in 'wartime', but never is war emphasised directly in the novel, however the idea of it is definitely there.

When people are injured in war (or otherwise) they may appear to be totally adjusted to that disability and yet there is a 'deep-seeded' regret that they were ever injured and altered, and they say there is a sense of 'anger', as well. How can it be otherwise?

Therefore I feel that Maurice's feelings are very multilayered and complex. It is not a simplistic thing to figure Maurice or his actions out. We are of the 'seeing' world and therefore, we have no true concept of what he is going through.

Hi Pensive and hi Virgil, glad you guys are back. Virgil, I am also in the midst of re-reading the story. I stopped when I got to the part that talked of the blood philosophy. I was hoping you would speak more about that since that is something you know more about than I do; or at least you seem to be able to express it better in words than I can.
Virgil, yes, do post that letter if you can find it. I do think you posted that in the WIL discussion. Do you know what year it took place - I could look it up.

Pensive, yes I do in someway think Lawrence sees himself in characters often or part of himself. I don't think he is like Bertie but it might be his intellectual, conversational side is somewhat more like Bertie than like Maurice. It was just a thought that he had been called 'Bert' as a young man. I find it equally interesting that Bertrum Russell was actually nicknamed 'Bertie'. That may end up having more significance to the story. Perhaps if indeed Bertie is perceived as gay then he would be totally deficient as a potential lover to Isabel but never do I get the impression that Isabel wants him as a lover, so I don't see the real significance of thinking of Bertie as being gay or just a man who can't connect with others - men or woman - on a deeper level, a 'blood conscious' level.

I want to make this clear. I never said that Isabel desired Bertie in a physical or sexual way. I feel totally sure that she only wanted a 'platonic' relationship with Bertie. Bertie makes up the part that Maurice lacks in verbal communication, conversation, intellect, etc., but Isabel is drawn sexually and in the deep blood conscious connection to her husband, who she most passionately and deeply loves. She wants no other lover but her husband, wh she is dedicated to.

Janine

03-07-2008, 10:23 PM

Where is everyone???

Dark Muse

03-07-2008, 10:37 PM

Janine

03-07-2008, 10:46 PM

I was starting to wonder that too, maybe when I get the chance, I can go over the story again and try and find some different points which I could bring up. Many of the passages I had origninaly highlighted have already been discussed but I can take another look over it.

How funny - we must have ESP, DM. I was wondering where you were - that is why I asked where everyone was. I know Virgil won't be here - he went to his sister's for the weekend; long drive there; he will be back next week though to comment.

That would be great, DM, if you could look the story over again. I also need to finish my second reading, so take your time. I just like to check to make sure no one dropped out completely; so my inquiry was really just that -curiousity and keeping tabs ;)

When I was re-reading the story the other night, I stopped at the part when Maurice came in from the barn. I need to progress with that and I am also in the middle of a story for the "Dubliners" thread. I am wondering where everyone is in there, as well. Only Niamh seems to be faithful so far. I guess I have to be patient - they will show up eventually.

Quark

03-07-2008, 10:56 PM

Where is everyone???

Oh, we're here--just having hard time keeping up. So many and such long posts make it slow work for the responses. There's so much to respond to. Anyway, I'll post something Saturday.

Janine

03-08-2008, 04:04 AM

Oh, we're here--just having hard time keeping up. So many and such long posts make it slow work for the responses. There's so much to respond to. Anyway, I'll post something Saturday.

Quark, I know what you mean, trying to keep up. I am a little tired out now myself and was taking a bit of a break, but wondered where everyone ran off to. The thread was beginning to disappear when I put it into search - was on the second page. If you can post some more comments tomorrow, or the next day, that would be great. I will go and check out the Chekhov now, but it is late.

Pensive

03-08-2008, 11:00 AM

So are we going to do the usual practice of posting different parts from the story and commenting on them? This time it seems like all the important things have already been discussed. :p

Quark

03-08-2008, 03:44 PM

The thread was beginning to disappear when I put it into search - was on the second page.

What an insult to put THE D.H. Lawrence thread on the second page! Shouldn't this thread be permanently on top? I never understand how the search result listings work. It's pretty random.

So are we going to do the usual practice of posting different parts from the story and commenting on them? This time it seems like all the important things have already been discussed. :p

Yeah, I second that--well, everything but the part about exhausting all the discussion topics. Let's get some chunks of text to comment on.

Janine

03-08-2008, 04:55 PM

What an insult to put THE D.H. Lawrence thread on the second page! Shouldn't this thread be permanently on top? I never understand how the search result listings work. It's pretty random. At least with the thread being somewhat buried, we won't get those people just looking for paper topics at the last second.

Quark, I have to address this thread briefly, before I head over to that 'BIG' challenge in the Chekhov thread.
Ok, then, Quark, it certainly is an insult, especially when the thread "What are you thinking?" comes on the first page consistently; but don't you worry, I will keep this thread on the first page if it kills me!!!:D :lol:

Quote by Pensive:

I saw someone today fishing for some D.H. Lawrence info to fill a paper with.
Ok, smart aleck, was this part a joke? Was it ME you are referring to?
Quote by Quark:

So are we going to do the usual practice of posting different parts from the story and commenting on them? This time it seems like all the important things have already been discussed.

Hi Pensive, glad you joined the group.

Yes, definitely, Pensive and Quark. If you can be patient, I promise to post some soon, probably tonight. Last night at 3:30AM I read some more of the story and thought I would post those parts for discussion today; I had some good ideas on that part of the text and thought it would be good to get feedback from all of you as well. In fact, I stopped myself from finishing the story again, so that I could form some ideas on the parts I read up to and then post that tonight. I can't do it presently, because I have to address the Chekhov thread and then I will post more chunks of the story tonight - promise. Can you all wait for me till then? I know mostly what I wish to point out about those parts, or at least I did know last night.

Yeah, I second that--well, everything but the part about exhausting all the discussion topics. Let's get some chunks of text to comment on.

Quark, We haven't yet exhausted the discussion topics. I could see that last night from my continued reading. As I said I will post more tonight. Hang-in there gang, or just randomly post more of your thoughts until I get to my post.

Quark

03-09-2008, 01:21 AM

Ok, then, Quark, it certainly is an insult, especially when the thread "What are you thinking?" comes on the first page consistently; but don't you worry, I will keep this thread on the first page if it kills me!!!:D :lol:

As long as we're in front of the "What are you eating/drinking right now" thread, we're alright. It probably wouldn't look good if literature took a back seat to food.

Ok, smart aleck, was this part a joke? Was it ME you are referring to?

No, it wasn't meant to be egata te, "toward you." I was talking about the person you were talking too, who I thought was just looking for paper ideas. I must have misread the post, though, because it wasn't anything like that. I got rid of my jab.

Yes, definitely, Pensive and Quark. If you can be patient, I promise to post some soon, probably tonight. Last night at 3:30AM I read some more of the story and thought I would post those parts for discussion today; I had some good ideas on that part of the text and thought it would be good to get feedback from all of you as well. In fact, I stopped myself from finishing the story again, so that I could form some ideas on the parts I read up to and then post that tonight. I can't do it presently, because I have to address the Chekhov thread and then I will post more chunks of the story tonight - promise. Can you all wait for me till then? I know mostly what I wish to point out about those parts, or at least I did know last night.

Whenever you get time, Janine. I know you've already promised to kill yourself for the thread, but really there's no rush.

Oh, and thanks for the post on Chekhov. It looked like you put some thought into it. I can't say if I'm going to have time tonight to respond.

Janine

03-09-2008, 03:22 PM

As long as we're in front of the "What are you eating/drinking right now" thread, we're alright. It probably wouldn't look good if literature took a back seat to food.

Yeah - really, just so we beat out eating/drinking thread! Well, I sure wish Literature would lead the way.

No, it wasn't meant to be egata te, "toward you." I was talking about the person you were talking too, who I thought was just looking for paper ideas. I must have misread the post, though, because it wasn't anything like that. I got rid of my jab.

Oh ok, but to be honest with you, I am not clear on what you are talking about, Quark, in this reference, and I don't have the energy to go back and look up your post I was commenting on. It truly wasn't very important.
Here is what happened to me last night and why I did not return to post. About 5 PM here all the lights went out which meant our heat as well. We have hotwater heat but it is powered by electricity. I was put quite out of commission for the entire night. We all sat around, after we scared up enough candles to half see in the house, and waited for the cold night to set in. Truly it was an ordeal since is was so windy out and the temperature dropped dramatically overnight. I know poor Pensive goes through power-outages all the time, so now I can fully sympathise with you, P. Our heat and electricity was not restored till 16 hours later - Brrrrr.
This is why I could not post, as I had promised. Right now, I will have to take my time in this thread and delay the part I told you I would post. I am a bit frazzled and tired and I feel like my cold is getting worse again. Therefore----

Whenever you get time, Janine. I know you've already promised to kill yourself for the thread, but really there's no rush.

It will have to be so today, a slight delay. We might lose our power again, since many areas are without it, and the utility companies are busy trying to restore all power; who knows - ours could go out again temporarily; also it is still quite windy out. At least I was able to cook my breakfast!

So here is the option - either post some thoughts on the next section or wait for me to do so. I was going to post the part when the visitor and the couple were eating at the table, but if you wait I can do that either tonight or tomorrow and comment as well. No, Quark, I am not that dedicated to 'kill' myself over this thread or the Chekhov one;) . I just am trying to do my best, but I am only human!:lol:

Oh, and thanks for the post on Chekhov. It looked like you put some thought into it. I can't say if I'm going to have time tonight to respond.

Quark, so glad I did post when I did, in both threads, considering the rest of my cold/dark boring evening. Only thing I can say for that was, since there was so little one could do in the dark, I listened to all of the Chekhov CD set and enjoyed it very much. Glad I bought it. I will comment more about it in the Chekhov thread in a few minutes. See you over there.

And sorry I am holding everyone up. I will post soon....

Dark Muse

03-09-2008, 08:12 PM

Hey, I have not had much time online lately, but I am still around, but I have not got the chance yet to go over the story again. Just checking in.

Janine

03-09-2008, 09:08 PM

Thanks ok, Dark Muse,

The rich suffusion of this state generally kept him happy, reaching its culmination in the consuming passion for his wife. But at times the flow would seem to be checked and thrown back. Then it would beat inside him like a tangled sea, and he was tortured in the shattered chaos of his own blood. He grew to dread this arrest, this throw-back, this chaos inside himself, when he seemed merely at the mercy of his own powerful and conflicting elements. How to get some measure of control or surety, this was the question. And when the question rose maddening in him, he would clench his fists as if he would compel the whole universe to submit to him. But it was in vain. He could not even compel himself.

For now, I will just post this part for everyone to think about. I bolded up the significant words. I think this really shows the turmoil that Maurice is going through in-between his times of bliss and passion with his wife.

Tonight, however, he was still serene, though little tremors of unreasonable exasperation ran through him. He had to handle the razor very carefully, as he shaved, for it was not at one with him, he was afraid of it. His hearing also was too much sharpened. He heard the woman lighting the lamps on the corridor, and attending to the fire in the visitor's room. And then, as he went to his room he heard the trap arrive. Then came Isabel's voice, lifted and calling, like a bell ringing:

As with blind people his sense of hearing is enhanced. I think this is true of other senses, as well.

Virgil

03-09-2008, 09:28 PM

Hi people. I'm back after a weekend away. I am so friggin exhausted, there is no way I can read the thread right now. :sick: I'll catch up in a day or so.

Janine

03-09-2008, 10:29 PM

Hi people. I'm back after a weekend away. I am so friggin exhausted, there is no way I can read the thread right now. :sick: I'll catch up in a day or so.

Hi Virgil, I must have been posting around the same time you did. I didn't see you there. Things have slowed up some on this thread, so don't worry about posting till you are well rested. Glad you are back safe and sound. I hope you had a good time.
See you tomorrow. I am tired out too, since we had a 16 hour power-outtage here and I did not sleep well last night with no heat. So - see you tomorrow and bye everyone for now.:)

Dark Muse

03-09-2008, 11:01 PM

They were newly and remotely happy. He did not even regert the loss of his side in these times of dark, palpable joy. A certain exulatance swelled his soul.

But as time wore on, sometimes the rich glamour would leave them. Sometimes after months of intensity, a sense of burden overcame Isable, a weariness, a terrible ennui, in that silent house apporached betwee a colonnade of teall-shafted pines.

I found these lines interesting, becasue they seemed to equate Maurice's blindness and his relationship with Isabel after its occurance almost to that of a newly married couple, where at first they find a great bliss within it together, and the initmacy and isolation they have with each other, but as the reaility sets in more, and time wears on, they begin to have struggles with it. Such as often with a married couply as the years grow on, they begin to have difficulities within the marriage and the sort of paradise of it begins to fade.

'Oh, I don't know. I might think differnetly now,' the blind man repiled. It was rather abstruse to Isabel

I wonder, is it becasue of the new persepctive on life that blindness gave Maurice that made him think his feelings for Bertie may be different than they once were?

Her nerves were hurting her. She looked automaticaly at the hight, uncurtained windows. In the dusk she could just perceive outside a huge fir-tree swaying its boughs: it was as if she thought it rather than saw it. The rain came flying on the window panes. Ah, why had she no peace? These two men, why did they tear at her? Why did they not come-why was there this suspense?

I found this passage rather interesting, particualy the way in which it talked about how she "thought" the tree rather than "seeing it" in someways this seems to be a refelctiuon back to her husbands own blindness. As well, the great anxity she seems to feel over the idea in being left alone, and she wishes only that at least one of them should come to her.

Thinking this of herself, she arched her grey eyebrows and her rather heavy eyelids, with a little flicker of a smile, and for a moment her grey eyes looked amused and wicked, a little sardonic, out of her transfigured Madonna face.

This passage seemed interesting to me, becasue in someways Isabel seems to take on the role of almost a mock Madona, though she genuinely cares for her husband, and they do love each other, in someways she seems almost to take on the role of martyr in having to look after both her husband, and soon child, as both will be equally dependent upon her, as well as the way in which she seems to choose to put herself in isolation with her husband. Originally she gives up her friend Bertie becasue she did not feel right continuing to be friends with him, becaue of her husband.

She pulled on her overshoes, wrapped a large tartan shawl around her, put on a man's felt hat, and ventured out along the causeways of the first yard. It was very dark. The wind was roaring in the great elms behind the outhouses. When she came to the second yard the darkness seemed deeper. She was unsure of her footing. She wished she had brought a lantern. Rain blew agianst her. Half she liked it, half she felt unwilling to battle.

I put the most imporant part in bold. It seems there are several instnaces within this story in which Isabel feels torn or caught between two different emtions, feelings or thoughts. As here she talks about her feelings of the rain. And later she talks about how she is both frightend and excited when she is in the darkness of the stables. Many cases she seemes to feel contradicting feelings.

Janine

03-10-2008, 03:24 PM

I found these lines interesting, becasue they seemed to equate Maurice's blindness and his relationship with Isabel after its occurance almost to that of a newly married couple, where at first they find a great bliss within it together, and the initmacy and isolation they have with each other, but as the reaility sets in more, and time wears on, they begin to have struggles with it. Such as often with a married couply as the years grow on, they begin to have difficulities within the marriage and the sort of paradise of it begins to fade.

Dark Muse, That is a good analogy and observation. Even if Maurice was not blinded, there probably would be a period of 'cooling down' between this couple. Pychologists call the blissful period of a new marriage - maybe the first year or so - the 'honeymoon' stage. From there we do have to shift to a more normal or down-to-earth stage. We can't live forever in the throws of passion with our heads floating in the clouds. I think the difference here though is that unlike early married couples when Maurice returned they experienced something very deep between them due to the blindness and it was quite astonishing for both - a deeper passion and a keener sensitivity for Maurice. They say that the blind do feel in other ways - other senses and keener. This may sound silly but I had a cat that was stone deaf and I could swear she experienced things (a sort of sixth sense) that my other cats never did. It was as though she sensed more. I think this is true also of the blind. I have seen films and read books on this fact. I think that it is harder for Maurice, he being alone in his blindness now and he can successfully connect with his wife on that level but not all of the time. This causes him some anxiety and frustration which seems to me to be perfectly understandable.

I wonder, is it becasue of the new persepctive on life that blindness gave Maurice that made him think his feelings for Bertie may be different than they once were?

I do think it. I think 'blindness' would greatly alter a person, and not necessarily for the worse.

I found this passage rather interesting, particualy the way in which it talked about how she "thought" the tree rather than "seeing it" in someways this seems to be a refelctiuon back to her husbands own blindness. As well, the great anxity she seems to feel over the idea in being left alone, and she wishes only that at least one of them should come to her.

I am glad you posted that part because I also found that passage so interesting and revealing. Yes, in this way Isabel is acting out like Maurice - like a blind person would act out or experience something - thinking it and not actually 'seeing it'. Again, when Isabel goes through the darkness in the barn she is confronted with the state her husband must live in permanently and it frightens her. Perhaps the awareness of it and the fact that she cannot share totally in his blind state without anxiety is where the actual fear lies.

This passage seemed interesting to me, becasue in someways Isabel seems to take on the role of almost a mock Madona, though she genuinely cares for her husband, and they do love each other, in someways she seems almost to take on the role of martyr in having to look after both her husband, and soon child, as both will be equally dependent upon her, as well as the way in which she seems to choose to put herself in isolation with her husband. Originally she gives up her friend Bertie becasue she did not feel right continuing to be friends with him, becaue of her husband.

I thought the mention of the title of Madonna was quite important, as well. True to some extent there is a sense of martyrism about Isabel or a sense of her giving up something, actually a great deal to please her husband and try to keep him happy. I also think she feels a frustration, that after sacrificing so much on her part he still is not always happy and neither is she. I feel that the isolation that the couple has adopted as the cure all for their situation is truly not working. I think both, and especially Isabel ideally need other people connections and other friends. When two people emerse themselves in their own separate world they put a lot of stress upon each other to create or maintain the partner's sense of happiness. In a way, I do not think this fair or reasonable.

I put the most imporant part in bold. It seems there are several instnaces within this story in which Isabel feels torn or caught between two different emtions, feelings or thoughts. As here she talks about her feelings of the rain. And later she talks about how she is both frightend and excited when she is in the darkness of the stables. Many cases she seemes to feel contradicting feelings.

Yes, Isabel's feelings are quite mixed and complex; I agree. Maurice is not the only one with anxieties and confusions.
I think it typical of Lawrence's writing, that he presents these two people with inner conflicts. We have seen this in all the stories we have read I believe. This makes us see the characters much more 3 dimensional and 'real'.

Quark

03-10-2008, 04:57 PM

Thanks ok, Dark Muse,For now, I will just post this part for everyone to think about. I bolded up the significant words. I think this really shows the turmoil that Maurice is going through in-between his times of bliss and passion with his wife.

I like your quote Janine. It's very descriptive of that possessive urge the male characters get in many of the stories we've read.

I found this passage rather interesting, particualy the way in which it talked about how she "thought" the tree rather than "seeing it" in someways this seems to be a refelctiuon back to her husbands own blindness. As well, the great anxity she seems to feel over the idea in being left alone, and she wishes only that at least one of them should come to her.

There have been so many posts, so I don't know whether we've really talked this out yet, but what do you suppose all the darkness and barn scenes do? I think you put it well when you say that it makes Isabel think rather see the things around her; but, what does it mean to think something rather than see something? And, why does it frighten the characters--excluding Maurice--so much?

Dark Muse

03-10-2008, 06:03 PM

There have been so many posts, so I don't know whether we've really talked this out yet, but what do you suppose all the darkness and barn scenes do? I think you put it well when you say that it makes Isabel think rather see the things around her; but, what does it mean to think something rather than see something? And, why does it frighten the characters--excluding Maurice--so much?

One of the things that is significant about the barn secen and the darkness is the fact that in a way Isabel is stepping into Maurice's world. She can take on some of his blindness to herself, though she can also leave that world to re-enter the world of sight whenever she wants to, unlike her husband. Maurice does not feel so frightend by it, becasue he feels at home in the darkness, but Isabel must leave the world of sight to enter into the dark and when she is in the darkness she feels as if things do not really exisit for her, as there are several mentions of invisiblity and the idea of being invisible within the story.

P.S. I do not have much time right now Janine, but I will take time with your post in reponse to mine, when I am able to do so.

Janine

03-10-2008, 06:10 PM

Quark, I will be back later to answer yours and to Dark Muse, I posted something almost exactly to that effect awhile back - about Isabel entering into the blind world of the barn and Maurice's domain and world and his perception. However, it is fine to repeat that and emphasis this point. I will think further on the whole idea of 'invisibility' and the feeling of not 'seeing' an object, but 'feeling' it. I will post something later - it is nearly dinnertime now.

Take your time DM, I am in no rush. I am quite busy with all the various discussion threads at this time. I can wait in here.

Dark Muse

03-10-2008, 09:25 PM

Dark Muse, That is a good analogy and observation. Even if Maurice was not blinded, there probably would be a period of 'cooling down' between this couple. Pychologists call the blissful period of a new marriage - maybe the first year or so - the 'honeymoon' stage. From there we do have to shift to a more normal or down-to-earth stage. We can't live forever in the throws of passion with our heads floating in the clouds. I think the difference here though is that unlike early married couples when Maurice returned they experienced something very deep between them due to the blindness and it was quite astonishing for both - a deeper passion and a keener sensitivity for Maurice. They say that the blind do feel in other ways - other senses and keener. This may sound silly but I had a cat that was stone deaf and I could swear she experienced things (a sort of sixth sense) that my other cats never did. It was as though she sensed more. I think this is true also of the blind. I have seen films and read books on this fact. I think that it is harder for Maurice, he being alone in his blindness now and he can successfully connect with his wife on that level but not all of the time. This causes him some anxiety and frustration which seems to me to be perfectly understandable.

Yes I think thier feelings and reactions to each other are natural and understandable for thier situation, and perhaps after thier blissful period, they just need time to balance out, as they are almost moving from one extreme to another in thier relationship, in thier dealing with the situation, and perhaps they just need time to sort of mellow out with each other to completely adapt to the situation they are in.

I am glad you posted that part because I also found that passage so interesting and revealing. Yes, in this way Isabel is acting out like Maurice - like a blind person would act out or experience something - thinking it and not actually 'seeing it'. Again, when Isabel goes through the darkness in the barn she is confronted with the state her husband must live in permanently and it frightens her. Perhaps the awareness of it and the fact that she cannot share totally in his blind state without anxiety is where the actual fear lies.

That is a good point, that she is made anxious by the fact that she knows she can never completely understand what her husband is going through, and though she has her moments where she can experince things the way he does, becasue in the back of her mind she alwyas knows she can come back from it, so she will never have the full effect of her husbands emotions.

I thought the mention of the title of Madonna was quite important, as well. True to some extent there is a sense of martyrism about Isabel or a sense of her giving up something, actually a great deal to please her husband and try to keep him happy. I also think she feels a frustration, that after sacrificing so much on her part he still is not always happy and neither is she. I feel that the isolation that the couple has adopted as the cure all for their situation is truly not working. I think both, and especially Isabel ideally need other people connections and other friends. When two people emerse themselves in their own separate world they put a lot of stress upon each other to create or maintain the partner's sense of happiness. In a way, I do not think this fair or reasonable.

Yes I can understand how she would feel frustation after everything she has done, and it still has not cured his bouts of depression, and intstead of trying to truly deal with the problem, she has just led them in isolation as a way to try and just ignore what is going on.

Quark

03-10-2008, 11:23 PM

One of the things that is significant about the barn secen and the darkness is the fact that in a way Isabel is stepping into Maurice's world. She can take on some of his blindness to herself, though she can also leave that world to re-enter the world of sight whenever she wants to, unlike her husband. Maurice does not feel so frightend by it, becasue he feels at home in the darkness, but Isabel must leave the world of sight to enter into the dark and when she is in the darkness she feels as if things do not really exisit for her, as there are several mentions of invisiblity and the idea of being invisible within the story.

It does make them see, or not see, through Maurice's eyes. It's not really a personal thing, though. It doesn't seem to make them understand Maurice any better. It just gives them the same kind of experience that Maurice has when he's upstairs and has that episode that Janine quoted from earlier. I'm struggling to find good terms to describe it, but I guess you could call it a heightened sensual and instinctual state with some weird empathic quality also. This is probably what freaks Bertie out so much. He's the distant, intellectual type and this experience is something profoundly alien to him. I'll have to go back and look more closely at Isabel's reaction. I don't remember precisely what she does. You think she feels invisible? Hmm, I will have to go back and read.

Janine, did you post something along these lines too? I'll go back and check.

Janine

03-11-2008, 12:17 AM

It does make them see, or not see, through Maurice's eyes. It's not really a personal thing, though. It doesn't seem to make them understand Maurice any better. It just gives them the same kind of experience that Maurice has when he's upstairs and has that episode that Janine quoted from earlier. I'm struggling to find good terms to describe it, but I guess you could call it a heightened sensual and instinctual state with some weird empathic quality also. This is probably what freaks Bertie out so much. He's the distant, intellectual type and this experience is something profoundly alien to him. I'll have to go back and look more closely at Isabel's reaction. I don't remember precisely what she does. You think she feels invisible? Hmm, I will have to go back and read.

Janine, did you post something along these lines too? I'll go back and check.

Yes, I posted on both scenes, quite extensively, a page or so back. If you can read my former posts, I pretty well explored the experiences of each, when they were alone and isolated - both Isabel in the darkness of the barn and then Maurice in the upstairs rooms in darkness and his own domain of sightlessness. I felt the scene with Maurice alone on the second floor emphasised Lawrence's 'blood consciousness' ideas.

Quark

03-11-2008, 01:18 PM

Yes, I posted on both scenes, quite extensively, a page or so back. If you can read my former posts, I pretty well explored the experiences of each, when they were alone and isolated - both Isabel in the darkness of the barn and then Maurice in the upstairs rooms in darkness and his own domain of sightlessness. I felt the scene with Maurice alone on the second floor emphasised Lawrence's 'blood consciousness' ideas.

Oh, sorry to go back. I just didn't get a chance to comment on it, and it could be considered the most important part of the story.

After going back, I see your posts, and I agree with most of them. I agree that the barn scenes expose other characters to his blindness, and that upstairs he has an instance of "blood consciousness". But, really, aren't these ideas very similar in the story--blindness and "blood consciousness". One seems to cause the other. In the dark barn Lawrence uses language commonly associated with this idea. There's the earthiness of it when Maurice is described as having "strong contact of his feet with the earth." There's the animal-like quality when Isabel thinks of the "animal grossness" of it. And, of course, there's blood: the veins stood out in the wrists...he stood up his face and neck were surcharged with blood, the veins stood out on his temples." The barn scenes seem like just as much an instance of "blood consciousness" as the episode with Maurice at the top of the stares. The only difference is that it's Isabel and Bertie experiencing it instead of Maurice.

Janine

03-11-2008, 03:26 PM

Oh, sorry to go back. I just didn't get a chance to comment on it, and it could be considered the most important part of the story.

After going back, I see your posts, and I agree with most of them. I agree that the barn scenes expose other characters to his blindness, and that upstairs he has an instance of "blood consciousness". But, really, aren't these ideas very similar in the story--blindness and "blood consciousness". One seems to cause the other. In the dark barn Lawrence uses language commonly associated with this idea. There's the earthiness of it when Maurice is described as having "strong contact of his feet with the earth." There's the animal-like quality when Isabel thinks of the "animal grossness" of it. And, of course, there's blood: the veins stood out in the wrists...he stood up his face and neck were surcharged with blood, the veins stood out on his temples." The barn scenes seem like just as much an instance of "blood consciousness" as the episode with Maurice at the top of the stares. The only difference is that it's Isabel and Bertie experiencing it instead of Maurice.

OK, good, Quark, then you read my posts on the idea of blood consciousness, which as you now know is a large part of Lawrence's belief system concerning relationships. Ok, now I like the things you pointed out in the barn to add to that. Yes, without using specific mention of blood consciousness Lawrence is non the less showing the presense of his idea int those images. I think also that the thing that Isabel and Maurice have happen between them encompasses blood consciousness. This is the thing she cannot describe in words to her friend or anyone else, perhaps even herself. It is something special and unique that the husband and wife experience together when alone and lost in the world of his sightlessness. He speaks of this as a passion, but it is even beyond this word.
Then later Maurice refers to something that replaces his ability at sight; one moment he tries to explain this to Bertie when he says:

There is something,' he replied. 'I couldn't tell you what it is.

I just noticed when I went back over the beginning of the story the very first line states:

Isabel Pervin was listening for two sounds--for the sound of wheels on the drive outside and for the noise of her husband's footsteps in the hall.
There immediately in this story is the emphasis on not seeing something but rather percieving it by sound/noise. Interesting, isn't it?

I also noticed in this beginning part of the story, second and third paragraph that there is more emphasis on Maurice's feelings and experience than there is on Isabel's, furture separating the couple in a sublte way:

He had been home for a year now. He was totally blind. Yet they had been very happy. The Grange was Maurice's own place. The back was a farmstead, and the Wernhams, who occupied the rear premises, acted as farmers. Isabel lived with her husband in the handsome rooms in front. She and he had been almost entirely alone together since he was wounded. They talked and sang and read together in a wonderful and unspeakable intimacy. Then she reviewed books for a Scottish newspaper, carrying on her old interest, and he occupied himself a good deal with the farm. Sightless, he could still discuss everything with Wernham, and he could also do a good deal of work about the place--menial work, it is true, but it gave him satisfaction. He milked the cows, carried in the pails, turned the separator, attended to the pigs and horses. Life was still very full and strangely serene for the blind man, peaceful with the almost incomprehensible peace of immediate contact in darkness. With his wife he had a whole world, rich and real and invisible.

It seems to me the Lawrence shows us immediately that the happiness is more for Maurice than for Isabel in this sightless situation and yet there are a few lines that indicate how they relate to each other such as 'They talked and sang and read together in a wonderful and unspeakable intimacy'. But after this statement they both branch out daily into their own separate worlds - she writing and he working about the farm. Then the statement 'Life was still very full and strangely serene for the blind man, peaceful with the almost incomprehensible peace of immediate contact in darkness. With his wife he had a whole world, rich and real and invisible.' seems to me to be more from Maurice's point of view.

The next statement goes on to indicate the current state of the couple together:

They were newly and remotely happy. He did not even regret the loss of his sight in these times of dark, palpable joy. A certain exultance swelled his soul.

As Dark Muse said, the couple, being not long married, may be expected to feel this blissful happiness for a time, and then would shift into a more normal range of emotions. This would be a natural progression.
I think this part of the statement 'they were newly and remotely happy' is a complex and questionable statement. I think they have discovered more 'intimately' things about themselves and the 'blood consciousness' has been stronger in their relationship, and yet at times the blindness has caused a 'remoteness' in their marriage. The last statement again shifts back to the fact that 'his soul' swelled; it does not state that Isabel's soul shared this feeling.
I don't one minute doubt the love Isabel has for Maurice, but I do feel the experience is a more intense one for Maurice, than it is for Isabel; this is because she cannot truly enter into his realm of sightlessness and total 'blood consciousness'.

Dark Muse

03-11-2008, 03:38 PM

There immediately in this story is the emphasis on not seeing something but rather percieving it by sound/noise. Interesting, isn't it?

Yes this is an interesting way for the story to start, it seems to set up the story rather nicely.

It seems to me the Lawrence shows us immediately that the happiness is more for Maurice than for Isabel in this sightless situation and yet there are a few lines that indicate how they relate to each other such as 'They talked and sang and read together in a wonderful and unspeakable intimacy'. But after this statement they both branch out daily into their own separate worlds - she writing and he working about the farm. Then the statement 'Life was still very full and strangely serene for the blind man, peaceful with the almost incomprehensible peace of immediate contact in darkness. With his wife he had a whole world, rich and real and invisible.' seems to me to be more from Maurice's point of view.

Yes it does seem that Maurice in particular finds a certain peace within his blindstate, something that Isabel cannot completely share in, or truly understand in quite the same way that Maurice does, becasue she can only have tempoary glimpses in his word.

Though I think it is normal for any couple, with or without the blindness to have seperate lives from each other, as well as togetherness, as many couples have thier own seperate interests from each other, and do things a part from each other, be it work, or a hobby, in addition to acting together.

Janine

03-11-2008, 03:49 PM

Though I think it is normal for any couple, with or without the blindness to have seperate lives from each other, as well as togetherness, as many couples have thier own seperate interests from each other, and do things a part from each other, be it work, or a hobby, in addition to acting together.

Dark MuseI totally agree, also. You misunderstood my intentions in posting that part. I was not discounting the need of separateness - only pointing out how the statement shifted, to now concentrate on their separate lives. Yes, that is healthy and totally normal for couples and necessary, I feel to maintain a good relationship. Too much togetherness is suffocating.

Dark Muse

03-11-2008, 07:57 PM

His hair was brown and crisp, his hands were large, reddish, intelligent, the veins stood out in the wrists; and his thighs and knees seemed massive

I found this interessting, becasue it is another exaample of an imporantance placed upon both the hands and legs/thighs of a char in a Lawrence story, as in the last story we had quite the discussion of the use of such, and once more these elements are mentioned as a way of expressing the characteristics of a char.

Maurice had a currious monolithic way of sitting in a chair, erect and distant. Isabel's heart always beat when she caught sight of him thus.

I find it interesting, how Maurice is so often viewed as being connected to the earth in someway, as well he is portrayed as a very strong and impressive as well as towering figure. As here he is viewed as being akin to a monolith.

He is seen as being very rooted to the ground, in a sort of unmoving, and unchanging way.

The cat had reared her sinister, feline length agianst his leg, clawing at his thigh affecitonately. He lifted her claws out of his flesh

The use of the word sinister just struck me as really odd and out of place here.

Janine

03-11-2008, 11:13 PM

I found this interessting, becasue it is another exaample of an imporantance placed upon both the hands and legs/thighs of a char in a Lawrence story, as in the last story we had quite the discussion of the use of such, and once more these elements are mentioned as a way of expressing the characteristics of a char.

Dark Muse, sorry to keep you waiting. I went out for the evening and just got back not long ago. I just turned on the computer.
DM, I wish you would not do that - abreviating or shorthand. At first I thought you were referring to a chair.:lol: I read these posts pretty fast and glance sometimes at the screen.
Anyway, I agree about the importance to Lawrence, at least, of the idea of a man's thighs as being almost a sexual symbol for him or one of passionate connection. This sounds very odd but in "Women In Love" there was a distinct scene when Ursula experiences the touching and passionate connection to Birkins thighs. I do recall also in other stories the emphasis on the thighs. I don't completely understand Lawrence's thinking on this but it definitely was something that facinated Lawrence. Hands also are often pointed out and emphasised - yes, you are right. I can understand the hand thing more than the thigh thing because I think a person's hands do say much about them and they can be so expressive. Artists love to draw hands and I had an art teacher once tell me that if you can master drawing hands you can master everything else.

I find it interesting, how Maurice is so often viewed as being connected to the earth in someway, as well he is portrayed as a very strong and impressive as well as towering figure. As here he is viewed as being akin to a monolith.

Yes, this is a good observation - connected to the earth. Also in some Lawrence work he will refer to a man as a tower of light or fire and in this story it is interesting to me how he saw Maurice as a tower of darkness - wasn't it?

He is seen as being very rooted to the ground, in a sort of unmoving, and unchanging way.

Good point.

The use of the word sinister just struck me as really odd and out of place here.

Yes, that cat scene is truly odd and reminescent of a scene in "Women in Love" which also featured a feline. I say to the claws in the leg - ouch! That really hurts when a cat does that and given Maurice's sensitive sense of touch you would think it would hurt him even more. Maybe the mere fact that the cat is physically connected to Maurice is actually appealing to him and to feel sensation in his legs even though it probably would be a pain sensation. Yes, 'sinister' is a very curious word placed in that statement. I don't really know what significance that can have or if the mere mention of this scene is representative or symbolic of something else.

Dark Muse

03-11-2008, 11:25 PM

Dark Muse, sorry to keep you waiting. I went out for the evening and just got back not long ago. I just turned on the computer.
DM, I wish you would not do that - abreviating or shorthand. At first I thought you were referring to a chair.:lol: I read these posts pretty fast and glance sometimes at the screen.

Sorry old habbit that I slipped back into.

Yes, this is a good observation - connected to the earth. Also in some Lawrence work he will refer to a man as a tower of light or fire and in this story it is interesting to me how he saw Maurice as a tower of darkness - wasn't it?

Yes, it was a tower of darkness

Quark

03-12-2008, 12:07 AM

The use of the word sinister just struck me as really odd and out of place here.

The evil cat does sort of confuse me, but I think this is just part of showing how uncomfortable Maurice is while inside. This is the "sighted" world, as we've taken to describing it, and Maurice is not so good at interacting in it. The sinister cat seems like just another device to show how restless Maurice must be through this.

Janine

03-12-2008, 02:50 PM

The evil cat does sort of confuse me, but I think this is just part of showing how uncomfortable Maurice is while inside. This is the "sighted" world, as we've taken to describing it, and Maurice is not so good at interacting in it. The sinister cat seems like just another device to show how restless Maurice must be through this.

Quark, I am not sure if that is correct, but hey, it sounds good for now;) and I really don't have anymore thoughts on it presently. If something comes to me, I will post a random thought.

For now, I plan on going out again today, so I can't post till much later on tonight. Hope you all miss me - haha;) :lol:

Dark Muse

03-12-2008, 03:01 PM

That is an interesting view of it Quark, and it does make sense. I have also condisered the possiblity that it might have been some sort of foreshadow, to the events that were to happen with Maurice and Bertie in the barn. Though it was not truly "evil" or "sinisther" needless to say Bertie was less than pleased with what happend, and at the end, I was given the impression, as if in the event, Maurice took something away from Bertie, or took some part of Bertie with him after what was done.

Bertie took the lantern and opend the door. The cat dissapeared. The two men went in silence along the causeways. Isabel, as they came, thought thier footsteps sounded strange. She looked up pathetically and anxiously for thier entrance. There seemed a currious elation about Maurice. Bertie was haggard, with sunken eyes.

I found it interesting how the cat is said to have "dissapeared" in this scene after what had passed between the two men.

And the image of "sunken" eyes gives an almost ghostly apperance or something ghoulish.

and then:

But she was watching Bertie. She knew that he had one deisre-to escape from this intimacy, this friendship, which had been thrust upon him. He could not bear it that he had been touched by the blind man, his insane reserve broken in. He was like a mollusk whose shell is broken

The image of the mollusk with a broken shell, made me feel as if he was left empty in someway, or had something precious taken away from him. As if the shell of a mollusk were broken that which was within would start to leak out untill only the empty shell was left behind.

It is as if Bertie's very soul was in someway violated or touched by what had happend.

Quark

03-12-2008, 11:50 PM

Quark, I am not sure if that is correct, but hey, it sounds good for now;) and I really don't have anymore thoughts on it presently. If something comes to me, I will post a random thought.

I didn't think it was that much of a reach, although I did mistake what part the cat was in. I thought the cat was clawing Maurice when they were inside the house, but the cat part is actually later when they're in the barn. Still, the cat performs a similar function--only for Bertie and not Maurice. It's Bertie who's uncomfortable in the barn, and the sinister appearance of the cat shows is meant to make the reader feel how odd and somewhat scary this must be for Bertie.

The image of the mollusk with a broken shell, made me feel as if he was left empty in someway, or had something precious taken away from him. As if the shell of a mollusk were broken that which was within would start to leak out untill only the empty shell was left behind.

It is as if Bertie's very soul was in someway violated or touched by what had happend.

The shell just seems to refer to Bertie's defensiveness or shyness. The sentences before that one indicate what Lawrence means. He says,
But she was watching Bertie. She knew that he had one desire--to escape from this intimacy, this friendship, which had been thrust upon him. He could not bear it that he had been touched by the blind man, his insane reserve broken in. He was like a mollusk whose shell is broken.
Bertie doesn't appear to have any desire to leak out of his shell. He wants to retreat and get away from this newfound intimacy with Maurice.

Dark Muse

03-12-2008, 11:53 PM

Quark

03-12-2008, 11:58 PM

I was not saying that he wanted to leak out of his shell, but rather it was something forced upon him, like Maurice pried into him and took something away from him that left him feeling somewhat empty.

That's certainly true. He does feel like the friendship was forced upon him. At least it sound like it when you read, "Bertie could not answer. He gazed mute and terror-struck, overcome by his own weakness. He knew he could not answer. He had an unreasonable fear, lest the other man should suddenly destroy him." What do you think is taken from Bertie, though?

Dark Muse

03-13-2008, 12:20 AM

It is hard to explain, it is just a sort of general feeling I got from reading the story. That at the end of the story, the impression I wass left with, was that Bertie was somehow empty in someway after the experince with Maurice.

He had lived so long in this sort of isolation within himself, though he surrounded himself with other people, he never really made connections, than Maurice violated that.

Afterwards, Bertie is not quite himself while Maurice seems improved in someways. It was like some part of him was taken away, and transfered into Maurice.

Now Bertie quivered with revulsion. Yet he was under the power of the blind man, as if hypnotized. He lifted his hand, and laid the fingers on the scar, on the scarred eyes. Maurice suddenly covered them with his own hand, pressed the fingers of the other man upon his disfigured eye-sockets, trembling in every fibre, and rocking slightly, slowly from side to side. He remained for a mintue or more, whilst Bertie stood as if in a swoon, unconcious, imprisoned.

Bertie could not answer. He gazed mute and terror-struck, overcome by his own weakness. He knew he could not answer. He had an unresonable fear, lest the other man should suddenly destroy him. Whereas Maurice was acutally filled with hot, poignant love, the passion of friendship. Perhaps it was this very passion of friendship which Bertie shrank from.

Maurice seems to establish a certain power or hold over Bertie, yet it seems to be something of an uneven and unqueal transfer between them, as Bertie does not seem to hold anything over Maurice in the same way. They do not truly unite together, but rather Maurice estbalishes himself over Bertie, even if that was not his true intent.

Quark

03-13-2008, 12:30 AM

It is hard to explain, it is just a sort of general feeling I got from reading the story. That at the end of the story, the impression I wass left with, was that Bertie was somehow empty in someway after the experince with Maurice.

He had lived so long in this sort of isolation within himself, though he surrounded himself with other people, he never really made connections, than Maurice violated that.

Afterwards, Bertie is not quite himself while Maurice seems improved in someways. It was like some part of him was taken away, and transfered into Maurice.

Maurice seems to establish a certain power or hold over Bertie, yet it seems to be something of an uneven and unqueal transfer between them, as Bertie does not seem to hold anything over Maurice in the same way. They do not truly unite together, but rather Maurice estbalishes himself over Bertie, even if that was not his true intent.

Bertie is mentally and physically drained after the contact with Maurice. The sunken eyes and near swoon point to that, but it sounded like you were saying some part of Bertie's personality is drawn out--as though there is some kind of transfer going on here. The language doesn't seem to indicate a swap or stealing or any other kind of transaction, though. It just describes contact which is what goes on at the end. Maurice gets more out of the experience because he's comfortable and open whereas Bertie's trying to resist this the whole time.

Janine

03-13-2008, 12:40 AM

Bertie is mentally and physically drained after the contact with Maurice. The sunken eyes and near swoon point to that, but it sounded like you were saying some part of Bertie's personality is drawn out--as though there is some kind of transfer going on here. The language doesn't seem to indicate a swap or stealing or any other kind of transaction, though. It just describes contact which is what goes on at the end. Maurice gets more out of the experience because he's comfortable and open whereas Bertie's trying to resist this the whole time.

Yes, I have to agree with you on this one Quark. I think that believing that Maurice took something from Bertie, is stretching the interpretation a little too far. Bertie is definitely taken aback and shaken by this close encounter with another human being; but that could be with a sighted person, as well. He is fighting the whole 'intimacy' idea, but he will not be permanently damaged by this incident, as if something were stolen from him and given to Maurice. No, sorry to disagree with you, DM, but he might not be quite the same after the experience, but I don't think Maurice is intentionally trying to lord power over Bertie, unless I am reading that incorrectly. I thought of the story "Prussian Officer", with one man lording his power over another, but I don't see that sort of maliciousness in this encounter in the barn. I felt the encounter was more tender than malicious. I think Bertie may never feel exactly the same again about Maurice or other humans, but he will still probably remain in his 'isolated' world, that he has created to shield himself from his own emotions.

Janine

03-14-2008, 04:24 PM

Such an odd thing; last night I resumed my listening to the audio Cd's of "Women in Love" - two scenes stood out to me and I hope to post some excerpts from the text for each. One was again the mention of the fascination that Lawrence seemed to have for the thighs of a man. The other was a section where you feel that the people are actually blind and relate as the blind man did in this story - in a tactile way and in a 'blood consciousness' sense, which enhanced the touching sensations; also words were not needed but everything was dependent on pure touch. I thought immediately of this story when I read/listened intently to these two sections of text. I hope I can locate the text online. I think that "Women in Love" is available on this site. I will go and check. The parallels are so interesting and can help us to better understand this story, through the eye's of Lawrence....no pun intented there.

Virgil

03-14-2008, 05:56 PM

Well, I finally finished my second reading of the story and fianlly have a little spare time to join you. I have not read all the comment, so please forgive me. I will try to do so. This isn't that complicated a story where we have to break down the sections and see how Lawrence builds it. I think we can agree that the story is a contrast between two characters, Maurice and Bertie, and the climatic interaction. The story then is about what makes them different and why Maurice is happy and satisfied, despite being blinded tragically, and why Bertie, despite his success and intelligence, is at his core not. Please forgive me if I've repeated what you have discussed. The key passage I think is the following. Maurice has gone into the barn for the evening and Bertie after a while decides to see what he's doing. When he finds him, Bertie seeks to understand Maurice.

'Isabel tells me,' Bertie began suddenly, 'that you have not suffered unbearably from the loss of sight.'

Maurice straightened himself to attend, but kept his arms folded.

'No,' he said, 'not unbearably. Now and again one struggles against it, you know. But there are compensations.'

'They say it is much worse to be stone deaf,' said Isabel.

'I believe it is,' said Bertie. 'Are there compensations?' he added, to Maurice.

'Yes. You cease to bother about a great many things.' Again Maurice stretched his figure, stretched the strong muscles of his back, and leaned backwards, with uplifted face.

'And that is a relief,' said Bertie. 'But what is there in place of the bothering? What replaces the activity?'

There was a pause. At length the blind man replied, as out of a negligent, unattentive thinking:

'Oh, I don't know. There's a good deal when you're not active.'

'Is there?' said Bertie. 'What, exactly? It always seems to me that when there is no thought and no action, there is nothing.'

Again Maurice was slow in replying.

'There is something,' he replied. 'I couldn't tell you what it is.'

I assume you guys have discussed that Maurice is associated with blood consciousness and Bertie with mental consciousness. Certainly there are plenty of examples. Maurice feels comfortable with the earth and animals while Bertie is a lawyer and a philosopher (I think). So why is Maurice satisfied with life, despite being active? Maurice is at peace with his situation and the inactivity is actually a plus. Above he responds with "'Oh, I don't know. There's a good deal when you're not active.'" And he couldn't tell you what exactly is the reason. The reason is that Maurice has achieved the Lawrencian ideal of life. He is like a flower bloomed out and thriving in the rich earth and blessed nature. He doesn't need intellectual stimulation or progress or riches or personal development. He just is in nature, like the animals that live with him.

Janine

03-14-2008, 06:30 PM

Well, I finally finished my second reading of the story and fianlly have a little spare time to join you. I have not read all the comment, so please forgive me. I will try to do so. This isn't that complicated a story where we have to break down the sections and see how Lawrence builds it. I think we can agree that the story is a contrast between two characters, Maurice and Bertie, and the climatic interaction. The story then is about what makes them different and why Maurice is happy and satisfied, despite being blinded tragically, and why Bertie, despite his success and intelligence, is at his core not. Please forgive me if I've repeated what you have discussed. The key passage I think is the following. Maurice has gone into the barn for the evening and Bertie after a while decides to see what he's doing. When he finds him, Bertie seeks to understand Maurice.

Oh welcome back, Virgil. I hope you are rested up by now. Well, it might help for you to try sometime to skim our posts, if you can't actually read them all. We have been discussing the differences in the two characters and the fact that Maurice can connect to life and nature and Bertie cannot, and of course, many more aspects of the story...we have covered it pretty well, but it is always good to get your perspective on the text...I know only good can come of that...you will see things we had not perceived and you can explain some parts or concepts better than I can, such as the 'blood consciousness'.

I assume you guys have discussed that Maurice is associated with blood consciousness and Bertie with mental consciousness. Certainly there are plenty of examples. Maurice feels comfortable with the earth and animals while Bertie is a lawyer and a philosopher (I think). So why is Maurice satisfied with life, despite being active? Maurice is at peace with his situation and the inactivity is actually a plus. Above he responds with "'Oh, I don't know. There's a good deal when you're not active.'" And he couldn't tell you what exactly is the reason. The reason is that Maurice has achieved the Lawrencian ideal of life. He is like a flower bloomed out and thriving in the rich earth and blessed nature. He doesn't need intellectual stimulation or progress or riches or personal development. He just is in nature, like the animals that live with him.

Yes, we brought up a good deal about the 'blood consciousness' idea, as opposed to Bertie's 'mental consciousness'. There are many examples in this one story, that is true. I sighted the part when Maurice was alone at the top of the stairs and felt his way to the bathroom. I posted that whole section and blantantly Lawrence comes out with the whole idea in that part of the story and text, he states the blood consciousness words, I believe. I posted some of the text on that part and pointed that out a few pages back.
This is a good point you have stressed: "Maurice is at peace with his situation and the inactivity is actually a plus. Above he responds with 'Oh, I don't know. There's a good deal when you're not active.' And he couldn't tell you what exactly is the reason. The reason is that Maurice has achieved the Lawrencian ideal of life."
I agree with that.
Also, I like the way you discuss the 'flower' idea. I had not touched on that idea of Lawrence's, but you are absolutely right. Maurice is even anchored to the earth, as a flower would be. As I said, in listening to certain parts in WIL, last night, I really got the fuller/richer meaning of these Lawrence ideas - the blood consciousness and the flower idea and the tactile idea in darkness, which made the 'blood consciousness', so much more real and apparent; important to the characters.

Virgil

03-15-2008, 12:34 AM

Virgil, do you think the ending is a transfiguration for the two males?

No I don't. Maurice is not in any need of transfiguration. He transfigured one would assume before the events of the story, perhaps with war event that blinded him. Bertie defnitely does not undergo a transfiguration.

Virgil

03-15-2008, 12:49 AM

This first part though stands out to me in that now Isabel is taken into the blind world of the blind man by entering the darkened barn - she is experiencing her own transfigurative experience by feeling blind herself within the confines of the darkness. If you notice the smells in the barn and the kitchen have been enhanced and when she completely immerses herself in the blackness she experinces sounds and odours completely as new in experience and greatly enhanced. Here it the text to the parts I am referring to:

I underlined the key words and also note twice light or white is mentioned since Isabel will soon be emersed in darkness and obscurity as her husband is in his blindness. Then below is the actual experience in the darkness as she progresses into the sightless night. I thought this writing was brilliant:

Interesting last line since a few stories I have read of Lawrence's refer to a tower of light for a man and not of darkness. Yes, this line is so significant in this story to my mind and says so much. Amazing writing. Now back in the house - going through the passages back to Isabel's world of sight:

What a contrast at first to her view of him in the yard with feet planted firmly on the ground. Now in the house he "wavered, and went cautiously".

This last part one can see that transition again back into Isabel's world of sight and how unsure the blind man is at first coming back into this world, until he gets his bearings again. Then when he goes upstairs, again he is enveloped in his own world of sightlessness and darkness:

Here is where the Lawrence idea and philosophy of blood consciousness comes into the story strongly stated. The writing is so poetic and flows as the consciousness does. Wonderfully expressed in this last paragraph!

This further expands on the idea and how when he is not intune with the blood consciousness or given over to it his life is then in chaos.

Very good points in here Janine. I might quibble with the statement that Isabel has her own transfigurative experiece as I put your words in bold above. I would characterize it as she has come in contact with that other world that Maurice is in contact with and so she has been enriched by it. But I couldn't claim that Isabel understands that world or really is enveloped in it. The blindness is very interesting. Maurice actually can see a different world than the visual healthy people. Lawrence believes in this other world. This other world is the same world that animals see and experience. It's a world outside of reason. I don't think Isabel sees this other world but does come in contact with it. If that makes sense.

Virgil

03-15-2008, 12:54 AM

Yes, when I was reading over the story, it seems to me that in someways, Isabel seems to take her husband's blindness on to herself. As when he husband is in darkness, or when she could not see him, he becomes invisible to her, and she becomes frightend of him, and she is only reassured once she can see him again.

Yes, I rather liked the line, and in many ways, Isabel seems to take a comfort within the blindess of her husband, though sometimes it becomes overwhelming and frightening, it seems to her also exhilierating, as it does not seem he attempts in anyway to prevent her from acting within the world outside of him, but she seems to choose to live in isolation with him, and seems content in doing so.

The anxiety she feels in the darkness is a suggestion that she cannot see the same world that maurice sees. Her satisfaction seems to be as a result of her contact with Maurice. Not that she lives a life of blood consciousness. If Maurice were to leave her for some reason, I think Isabel would be more like Bertie.

Virgil

03-15-2008, 01:01 AM

Virgil will comment on Lawrence's blood philosophy

Here is the quote that explains Lawrence's blood philosophy.

From 8 December 1915 letter to Bertrand Russell,
page 470 of The Letters of D.H. Lawrence: June 1913-October 1916.

I have been reading Frazer’s Golden Bough and Totemism and Exogamy. Now I am convinced of what I believed when I was about twenty—that there is another seat of consciousness than the brain and nerve system: there is a blood-consciousness which exists in us independently of the ordinary mental consciousness, which depends on the eye as its source or connector. There is the blood-consciousness, with the sexual connection, holding the same relation as the eye, in seeing, holds to the mental consciousness. One lives, knows, and has one’s being in the blood, without any reference to nerves and brain. This is one half of life, belonging to the darkness. And the tragedy of this our life, and of your life, is that the mental and nerve consciousness exerts a tyranny over the blood-consciousness, and that your will has gone completely over to the mental consciousness, and is engaged in the destruction of your blood-being or blood-consciousness, the final liberating of the one, which is only death in result. Plato was the same. Now it is necessary for us to realise that there is this other great half of our life active in the darkness, the blood-relationship: that when I see, there is a connection between my mental-consciousness and an outside body, forming a precept; but at the same time, there is a transmission through the darkness which is never absent from the light, into my blood-consciousness: but in seeing, the blood-percept is not strong. On the other hand, when I take a woman, then the blood-percept is supreme, my blood-knowing is overwhelming. There is a transmission, I don’t know of what, between her blood and mine, in the act of connection. So that afterwards, even if she goes away, the blood-consciousness persists between us, when the mental consciousness is suspended; and I am formed then by my blood-consciousness, not by my mind or nerves at all.

He wrote the letter to Bertram Russell, who I believe was the Bertie Reid was based on.

Virgil

03-15-2008, 01:06 AM

Yes, this is very true, and this is something of which I have first hand experince with. My boyfriend was in Iraq, and was sent home becasue of injuries he sustained, and he suffers from PTSD, and infact, though he is not completly blind, one of the affects of his injuries, as his vision. He has very low vision now, in such a way that it does impact his daily life and a lot of some of the things he use to be able to do, he cannot anylonger

Oh sorry to hear about your boyfriend's injuries D-M. Those brave men and women who are soldiers have my heart. I hope he recovers fully. But now that I have read this story twice and digested it, I don't think there is any the war theme in it. The war is just the mechanism by which Maurice experiences his accident.

Virgil

03-15-2008, 01:14 AM

Well, yeah Isabel doesn't want both of them for the same reason. She's much more physically attracted to Maurice; but, let's face it, Maurice is a bit of a stick in the mud. He can hardly carry on a civil conversation for more than a few words. Bertie is the much more talkative, friendly sort of man that Isabel would like to talk to. Which would be great for Bertie except the fact that he feels emasculated by his own timidity. And, he wants to find some real intimacy. Lawrence phrases it like this:

Maurice, in his turn, has his own problems. He wants Isabel, but she's busy being a mom and talking to Bertie.

So, concisely, that's why I'm saying there's this unhappy triangle of unfulfilled desires.

The end is kind of creepy isn't it. The whole Bertie feeling up Maurice's eye socket was pretty weird; but, at the same time, I thought it worked to show them connecting.

I don't think that there is a love triangle at all. There is a triangle of blood versues mind consciousness and Isabel is somewhere in between, mostly because of her contact with Maurice and perhaps because of her pregnacy which makes her closer to that mysterious world beyond reason.

Virgil

03-15-2008, 01:22 AM

Dark Muse

03-15-2008, 01:27 AM

Nice to have you join in.

The anxiety she feels in the darkness is a suggestion that she cannot see the same world that maurice sees. Her satisfaction seems to be as a result of her contact with Maurice. Not that she lives a life of blood consciousness. If Maurice were to leave her for some reason, I think Isabel would be more like Bertie.

Yes I agree with that, I could see her becoming more withdrawn as Bertie is, if she were to loose Maurice for some reason.

But now that I have read this story twice and digested it, I don't think there is any the war theme in it. The war is just the mechanism by which Maurice experiences his accident.

No I do think think the story has a war theme really, but even without the intent of making it in anyway about the war, it still demostrates how the lives of people can be touched by the effects of the war. By the fact that the war was the cause of his blindness was has affected Maurice and Isabel and the direction thier life will now take.

No I don't. Maurice is not in any need of transfiguration. He transfigured one would assume before the events of the story, perhaps with war event that blinded him. Bertie defnitely does not undergo a transfiguration.

Good point, and I agree.

LOL sorry I kind of responded to your posts in the reverse order from which you posted them in.

Janine

03-15-2008, 02:51 AM

Read all and everyone seems to be in agreement on the basic points. Virgil, you did a good job of catching up and I am glad you did not miss out on this fine story. It was a good one and so has been our discussion.
I will try to post some thoughts in here tomorrow. I wanted to look a few things up - some passages about 'blood consciousness' and about the idea of the 'flower', as Lawrence sees a person in a relationship and of some other things that seem to relate to this story.
Well, considering I posted the announcement for this story on post #1080 something, and we filled up 8 pages discussing this story, I think we all did pretty well this time.

I just found this past post of yours, Virgil:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
"Virgil, do you think the ending is a transfiguration for the two males? "

You'll have to wait until I read it. It did cross my mind as I read you and Dark Muse discuss it. If so perhaps I should have used it in my thesis. Could I have missed it? We'll see.

So the transfiguration aspect did cross your mind at least but now you dispute it. I can see your point that Bertie definitely was not transfigured and that Maurice's transfiguration would have come earlier when he first lost his eyesight. That was a good point to make.
I can't think anymore now - too tired out. I need to go to bed - it is way late. See you all tomorrow. J

Virgil

03-15-2008, 09:04 AM

Dark Muse

03-15-2008, 01:03 PM

It sounds good to me

Janine

03-15-2008, 03:09 PM

I feel so much relieved now that I can finally participate. Perhaps I rushed to the central part of the story just now. If I did not feel the need to rush in and get to the core of the story I would have gone through a discussion of a some other points, which would have ultimately reached that core. So perhaps we can back fill. How's this for an agenda: (1) Discussion of Isabel's and Maurice's relationship, (2) a discussion of Maurice's and Bertie's characters, (3) a discussion of blood consciousness, (4) a discussion of the climax, the touch exchange, and (5) a discussion of how Bertram Russell's and Lawrence's relatonship figures in the story, yes Janine a biographical discussion so look up that relationship in your Lawrence biographies. :) Do you think this is a good agenda?

Sure, Virgil, we can discuss in this order. We still have a lot of time left over this month. We did discuss each of those things in some detail, but I am sure you will add more to our former comments. 5) - more research??? Oh...ok.....where do you think I will find info...in the biographies? or the letters? I will see what I can dig up. I still do not think it a huge part of the story, or that important to Bertie's character. Maybe, I will feel differently when I discover more about Russell. I do think that Bertie could represent any man like Bertie who does not connect with woman - it does not necessarily mean Bertie is a homosexual or even has those tendencies. If he were, I imagine he would be even more disturbed during the incident in the barn with Maurice. But, I can't bring myself to see that in anyway as a sexual scene, nor did I think Lawrence intended it to be so.

So anyway, Virgil, of course, you can back-up the wagon - go back to the beginning and start with the first item on your outline. It sounds good to me. I like the way you outlined the topics to discuss. I will let you lead with all of this, since I am a little 'burned-out' now with this discussion and with the Chekhov SS's, although we just started a second story in that one, so things are picking up. I had to put "A Tale of Two Cities" on hold temporarily and I am trying to finish listening to WIL on MP3....slow going, since I want to fully enjoy and absorb that great narration.

Virgil

03-15-2008, 06:40 PM

Ok, great. Let's look at Isabel's and Maurice's relationship. Two early paragraghs are insightful. Here's the first:

He had been home for a year now. He was totally blind. Yet they had been very happy. The Grange was Maurice's own place. The back was a farmstead, and the Wernhams, who occupied the rear premises, acted as farmers. Isabel lived with her husband in the handsome rooms in front. She and he had been almost entirely alone together since he was wounded. They talked and sang and read together in a wonderful and unspeakable intimacy. Then she reviewed books for a Scottish newspaper, carrying on her old interest, and he occupied himself a good deal with the farm. Sightless, he could still discuss everything with Wernham, and he could also do a good deal of work about the place--menial work, it is true, but it gave him satisfaction. He milked the cows, carried in the pails, turned the separator, attended to the pigs and horses. Life was still very full and strangely serene for the blind man, peaceful with the almost incomprehensible peace of immediate contact in darkness. With his wife he had a whole world, rich and real and invisible.
What is interesting is that they have blocked the outside world. These are interesting setences: "She and he had been almost entirely alone together since he was wounded. They talked and sang and read together in a wonderful and unspeakable intimacy." They have built life together, but wy is it "unspeakable intimacy?" They have blocked the outside world, but it is Isabel who requires the outside world. "Sometimes, after months of this intensity, a sense of burden overcame Isabel, a weariness, a terrible ennui, in that silent house approached between a colonnade of tall-shafted pines." And this ennui tinges Maurice into depression. It seems that the outside world destroys the happiness that they have formed. Here's the other early important paragragh:

Dazed, she schemed for a way out. She invited friends, she tried to give him some further connexion with the outer world. But it was no good. After all their joy and suffering, after their dark, great year of blindness and solitude and unspeakable nearness, other people seemed to them both shallow, prattling, rather impertinent. Shallow prattle seemed presumptuous. He became impatient and irritated, she was wearied. And so they lapsed into their solitude again. For they preferred it.

There's that word again, "unspeakable." Why unspeakable? Well, I think we see the basis of their relationship with the following from a bit later:

She had one great article of faith, which was, that husband and wife should be so important to one another, that the rest of the world simply did not count. She and Maurice were husband and wife. They loved one another. They would have children. Then let everybody and everything else fade into insignificance outside this connubial felicity. She professed herself quite happy and ready to receive Maurice's friends. She was happy and ready: the happy wife, the ready woman in possession. Without knowing why, the friends retired abashed and came no more. Maurice, of course, took as much satisfaction in this connubial absorption as Isabel did.
That's one of those paragraghs that drives the feminist nuts. ;) She will submit her life to Maurice's and she severs her friends. At least for a bit. But it doesn't answer why unspeakable.

Without copying too much from the story, let it suffice that Bertie's and Isabel's relationship rests heavily on speach and speaking. He shares her "literary activities." They have extended conversation and try to reason out life and Maurice. Early on before Bertie shos up, Isabel tries to find Maurice out back, in the barn, and we have this passage:

She reached at last the just visible door of the stable. There was no sign of a light anywhere. Opening the upper half, she looked in: into a simple well of darkness. The smell of horses, and ammonia, and of warmth was startling to her, in that full night. She listened with all her ears, but could hear nothing save the night, and the stirring of a horse.

'Maurice!' she called, softly and musically, though she was afraid. 'Maurice--are you there?'

Nothing came from the darkness. She knew the rain and wind blew in upon the horses, the hot animal life. Feeling it wrong, she entered the stable, and drew the lower half of the door shut, holding the upper part close. She did not stir, because she was aware of the presence of the dark hindquarters of the horses, though she could not see them, and she was afraid. Something wild stirred in her heart.

She listened intensely. Then she heard a small noise in the distance--far away, it seemed--the chink of a pan, and a man's voice speaking a brief word. It would be Maurice, in the other part of the stable. She stood motionless, waiting for him to come through the partition door. The horses were so terrifyingly near to her, in the invisible.

The loud jarring of the inner door-latch made her start; the door was opened. She could hear and feel her husband entering and invisibly passing among the horses near to her, in darkness as they were, actively intermingled. The rather low sound of his voice as he spoke to the horses came velvety to her nerves. How near he was, and how invisible! The darkness seemed to be in a strange swirl of violent life, just upon her. She turned giddy.

Her presence of mind made her call, quietly and musically:

'Maurice! Maurice--dea-ar!'

'Yes,' he answered. 'Isabel?'

She saw nothing, and the sound of his voice seemed to touch her.

'Hello!' she answered cheerfully, straining her eyes to see him. He was still busy, attending to the horses near her, but she saw only darkness. It made her almost desperate.
This is the passage where Isabel comes into contact with Maurice's dark world. I use the word "contact" very specifically. So much suggestive language here. The horse smell, the "hot animal life," "the dark, hindquarters of the horses," and Isabel passing through the lower half of the barn door while the upper half is closed. It's as if she has come in contact with another world. And notice this sentence: "She saw nothing, and the sound of his voice seemed to touch her." "Touch" is such a loaded word in this story. Animals and humans and people all touch in some way, especially at the end betwenn Bertie and Maurice. So why unspeakable? Because touch is a means of communication without language. Because Isabel has come into touch with Maurice and has been altered by it. She cannot speak of it because there is no human language that can explain it.

Janine

03-15-2008, 07:04 PM

Good, Virgil, you have zeroed in on the word 'unspeakable' and you have observed well why the word has been repeated several times throughout the text. Yes, to describe the state of non-speech is an unspeakable thing. This also is the thing that Isabel says she cannot describe to others.
Yes, the barn smells make it evident that there is a closeness and affinity to the animal connection to humans and people by means of smell and touch only. The darkness mimics Maurice's daily natural state now of sightlessness.
Isabel and Maurice exist in a world no longer needful of language - touch being prominent. So one could say the sightless world or state relies mainly on non language and most sensitively on touch alone. That is an interesting observation.

Dark Muse

03-16-2008, 01:51 AM

That's one of those paragraghs that drives the feminist nuts. ;) She will submit her life to Maurice's and she severs her friends. At least for a bit. But it doesn't answer why unspeakable.

LOL you see I did not acutally view this as a bad thing. But in someways I rather shared Isabel's sentiment, and it sounded like a rather nice idea, to just be living out on a farm with your loved one exelcuded from the rest of the world. Though it does not work out so well for them in the long run, it sounded quite pleasent.

As well in there case it was two-sideded I think, as ulitmately in the end they end up driving away Maurice's friends as well and both seemed quite pleased by that fact.

She professed herself quite happy and ready to receive Maurice's friends. She was happy and ready: the happy wife, the ready woman in possession. Without knowing why, the friends retired abashed and came no more. Maurice, of course, took as much satisfaction in this connubial absorption as Isabel did.

Quark

03-16-2008, 11:25 PM

So why unspeakable? Because touch is a means of communication without language. Because Isabel has come into touch with Maurice and has been altered by it. She cannot speak of it because there is no human language that can explain it.

That's a good description of what's behind their relationship and their "great year of blindness and solitude." This doesn't last, though. Something interposes and breaks up the close contact:

But as time wore on, sometimes the rich glamour would leave them. Sometimes, after months of this intensity, a sense of burden overcame Isabel, a weariness, a terrible ennui, in that silent house approached between a colonnade of tall-shafted pines. Then she felt she would go mad, for she could not bear it. And sometimes he had devastating fits of depression, which seemed to lay waste his whole being. It was worse than depression--a black misery, when his own life was a torture to him, and when his presence was unbearable to his wife.

Maurice's sadness, which is equally incomprehensible, disrupts their relationship. The same blindness that has brought him closer to his wife has separated him from other people, and the loneliness of his situation begins to set in. Isabel invites friends over, but nothing seems to help. Maurice worries that he's disfigured and a burden to his wife. All of this complicates their relationship. He eventually overcomes these problems with Bertie in the barn scene, but I wonder exactly how much success he has with Isabel.

Virgil

03-17-2008, 07:44 AM

That's a good description of what's behind their relationship and their "great year of blindness and solitude." This doesn't last, though. Something interposes and breaks up the close contact:

Maurice's sadness, which is equally incomprehensible, disrupts their relationship. The same blindness that has brought him closer to his wife has separated him from other people, and the loneliness of his situation begins to set in. Isabel invites friends over, but nothing seems to help. Maurice worries that he's disfigured and a burden to his wife. All of this complicates their relationship. He eventually overcomes these problems with Bertie in the barn scene, but I wonder exactly how much success he has with Isabel.

It's interesting about Maurice's period of sadness. I read that as the outside world intruding on his tranquility. And that by the story's present time, he's overcome it. I guess we can talk about that when we discuss the climax. I guess i don't see how Maurice changes after that barn scene. It's Bertie who's altered.

Janine

03-17-2008, 03:42 PM

It's interesting about Maurice's period of sadness. I read that as the outside world intruding on his tranquility. And that by the story's present time, he's overcome it. I guess we can talk about that when we discuss the climax. I guess i don't see how Maurice changes after that barn scene. It's Bertie who's altered.

Virgil, I do think we disagree here. You had better go back over the story. First off, I do think that some time has passed for Maurice and Isabel and they are not experiencing (continually or consistently) the marital bliss they first felt when he came home wounded and blind. I don't know if the text indicates just how much time has elapsed, but I felt it was at least a year. It seems that at first they needed only themselves, and then later Isabel, feeling something is missing, invited her friends to visit, and finally Maurice's; however, the friends never seemed to stick around very long and once again, M and I were left entirely to themselves and in a sort of isolation.
The second thing we see differently, is that when Maurice comes out of the barn with Bertie, Maurice is quite elated; yet in the prior scene, when he was sitting at the table with Isabel and Bertie, Maurice was not connecting with them at all, and he was in a low state of mind, feeling shut out; therefore he retreated to his own dark world in the barn. I think this was compounded by the unsure reasons he states to Bertie in the barn - about what his scar looks like and how he expresses his deepest insecurities. Below I posted that part of the text:

'I hope I'm not in your way at all at the Grange here,' said Bertie, rather shy and stiff.
'My way? No, not a bit. I'm glad Isabel has somebody to talk to. I'm afraid it's I who am in the way. I know I'm not very lively company. Isabel's all right, don't you think? She's not unhappy, is she?'
'I don't think so.'
'What does she say?'
'She says she's very content--only a little troubled about you.'
'Why me?'
'Perhaps afraid that you might brood,' said Bertie, cautiously.
'She needn't be afraid of that.' He continued to caress the flattened grey head of the cat with his fingers. 'What I am a bit afraid of,' he resumed, 'is that she'll find me a dead weight, always alone with me down here.'
'I don't think you need think that,' said Bertie, though this was what he feared himself.
'I don't know,' said Maurice. 'Sometimes I feel it isn't fair that she's saddled with me.' Then he dropped his voice curiously. 'I say,' he asked, secretly struggling, 'is my face much disfigured? Do you mind telling me?'
'There is the scar,' said Bertie, wondering. 'Yes, it is a disfigurement. But more pitiable than shocking.'
'A pretty bad scar, though,' said Maurice.
'Oh, yes.'
There was a pause.
'Sometimes I feel I am horrible,' said Maurice, in a low voice, talking as if to himself. And Bertie actually felt a quiver of horror.
'That's nonsense,' he said.

I think that passage clearly shows the insecurity that Maurice is feeling in relation to his wife. I think that actually, Bertie, now becomes the one outside source or 3rd party that Maurice can call upon to question and confide in about these feelings he has as a male. Bertie being male and Isabel being a woman will not understand in the same way. This is finally Maurice's chance to know the truth about things that had to be bothering him within his own mind and being. It is ironic and odd that this source of confidence should end up being Bertie. I feel that this comes about because Maurice is set appart at the table and he sees from a different perspective how well Isabel and Bertie can communicate platonically in a language based way. Whereas, Maurice does not approach his wife in this mannor and apparently does not feel secure enough to say to her - is my scar horrid, am I ugly, repulsive, am I a burden. What husband could say that really? I think that, therefore, Maurice is totally transformed when he emerges with Bertie from the barn. He has gained his self confidence and can move on now without being burdened by these inner thoughts of his own worthlessness.
Now the next part of the text:

Maurice again straightened himself, leaving the cat.
'There's no telling,' he said. Then again, in an odd tone, he added: 'I don't really know you, do I?'
'Probably not,' said Bertie.
'Do you mind if I touch you?'
The lawyer shrank away instinctively. And yet, out of very philanthropy, he said, in a small voice: 'Not at all.'
But he suffered as the blind man stretched out a strong, naked hand to him. Maurice accidentally knocked off Bertie's hat.
'I thought you were taller,' he said, starting. Then he laid his hand on Bertie Reid's head, closing the dome of the skull in a soft, firm grasp, gathering it, as it were; then, shifting his grasp and softly closing again, with a fine, close pressure, till he had covered the skull and the face of the smaller man, tracing the brows, and touching the full, closed eyes, touching the small nose and the nostrils, the rough, short moustache, the mouth, the rather strong chin. The hand of the blind man grasped the shoulder, the arm, the hand of the other man. He seemed to take him, in the soft, travelling grasp.
'You seem young,' he said quietly, at last.
Ok, that part describes the intense experience Maurice is emersed in and the uncomfortable aspects of this experience for Bertie. It does not really describe what Bertie is feeling, as Maurice is touching him, but only his prior reaction to the request and afterwards - the result, quoted below:

The lawyer stood almost annihilated, unable to answer.
'Your head seems tender, as if you were young,' Maurice repeated. 'So do your hands. Touch my eyes, will you?--touch my scar.'
Now Bertie quivered with revulsion. Yet he was under the power of the blind man, as if hypnotized. He lifted his hand, and laid the fingers on the scar, on the scarred eyes. Maurice suddenly covered them with his own hand, pressed the fingers of the other man upon his disfigured eye-sockets, trembling in every fibre, and rocking slightly, slowly, from side to side. He remained thus for a minute or more, whilst Bertie stood as if in a swoon, unconscious, imprisoned.

Only one line in that passage seems to indicate Maurice's reaction to the encounter - "trembling in every fibre, and rocking slightly, slowly, from side to side." This is confusing to me - this is referring to Maurice, correct. So if this is indeed referring to Maurice he is also feeling this intense experience with Bertie, but his is not of revulsion. The last text also seems to indicate some sense of power that Maurice now has over the smaller man and the weaker one. Weaker, in the sense that Bertie keeps himself very much appart from others in a physical sense. He is the weaker counterpart of the animalistic power that Maurice represents. In this scene they are now directly pitted against each other - the man of language and intellect and the man of 'blood consciousness' or animal instinct. The underlined words do indicate that the 'blood consciousness' has the upper hand in power here. This whole section of the story is very powerful.

Then suddenly Maurice removed the hand of the other man from his brow, and stood holding it in his own.
'Oh, my God' he said, 'we shall know each other now, shan't we? We shall know each other now.'
Bertie could not answer. He gazed mute and terror-struck, overcome by his own weakness. He knew he could not answer. He had an unreasonable fear, lest the other man should suddenly destroy him. Whereas Maurice was actually filled with hot, poignant love, the passion of friendship. Perhaps it was this very passion of friendship which Bertie shrank from most.
As you pointed out before, Virgil, I think that this would be so parellel to the relationship Lawrence had with Bertrum Russell. I still do not think that would have been a sexual or homosexual thing between them but rather this deep platonic with physical closeness that Lawrence talks of with a man in his letter and in his novels - very much so in "Women in Love". I believe in "The Plumed Serpent" he nearly or does achieve this sort of union with another male. I am sure the way Bertrum Russell shunned Lawrence and cut off their friendship would be similar to the feelings that Bertie has in this story; referring to his feelings of repulsion and the need to get away from the man (Maurice, possibly representative of Lawrence himself, in concept). Did we establish that this story was indeed written a few years after that break. It may have been a story in Lawrence's mind and did not come to the page until later on - perhaps several years.

'We're all right together now, aren't we?' said Maurice. 'It's all right now, as long as we live, so far as we're concerned?'
'Yes,' said Bertie, trying by any means to escape.
Maurice stood with head lifted, as if listening. The new delicate fulfilment of mortal friendship had come as a revelation and surprise to him, something exquisite and unhoped-for. He seemed to be listening to hear if it were real.Then he turned for his coat.
'Come,' he said, 'we'll go to Isabel.'
Bertie took the lantern and opened the door. The cat disappeared. The two men went in silence along the causeways. Isabel, as they came, thought their footsteps sounded strange. She looked up pathetically and anxiously for their entrance. There seemed a curious elation about Maurice. Bertie was haggard, with sunken eyes.
'What is it?' she asked.
'We've become friends,' said Maurice, standing with his feet apart, like a strange colossus.
Obviously, the encounter and experience has changed and transformed Maurice, but not Bertie. Their final reactions are quite different. This reminds me somewhat, of the wrestling scene between Ruppert and Gerald in "Women in Love" - Ruppert being the more sure of the physical close contact with another male and Gerald entertaining the thought, but not quite of the same mind, or fully understanding/connecting with Ruppert's idea of the perfect male union (not in a homosexual context). In this case there is no sense of revulsion, but there is a difference of the two men - one who cannot fully connect with other humans on a 'blood consciousness' level. In some ways this makes Ruppert the more powerful in the end. I think that not only Bertrum Russell, was put-off by this idea of Lawrence's, but throughout L's life there were other close friends who shunned his way of thinking. I know that Murray was one. He pretty much told Lawrence to abandon this idea. I have read it in some letters.

When Dark Muse said that she thought Maurice was absorbing Bertie or taking from him she most likely got this idea from this passage:

He seemed to take him, in the soft, travelling grasp.

I don't exactly know what to make of this statement, but I don't think he took from Bertie anything permanently. However, in the moment, he did seem to 'take him in', as one experiences something tactile or aromatic. With sight we need not get even close to the other human being to perceive them; but, without sight, only the other closer - animalistic/instinctive senses can be relied on to reveal or know the other person.

Virgil

03-17-2008, 03:56 PM

What an outstanding post Janine. I will have to read carefully what you highlighted and get back. :)

Janine

03-17-2008, 04:12 PM

What an outstanding post Janine. I will have to read carefully what you highlighted and get back. :)

Virgil, oh thank you so much for the compliment - it means a lot. It is a wonder I can think - I am so tired. Maybe, I was relying on my own 'animal blood consciousness' to write that post.:lol: Gee, and I was disagreeing with you, too. hahaha.

Seriously though, after you review, it let me know what you think of the ideas I have layed out. It took me a good hour to compose that post.

Glad you had not requoted me yet, Virgil; one of my end [/quote]'s was missing and I had to revise it just now.

Virgil

03-17-2008, 09:38 PM

Virgil, I do think we disagree here. You had better go back over the story. First off, I do think that some time has passed for Maurice and Isabel and they are not experiencing (continually or consistently) the marital bliss they first felt when he came home wounded and blind. I don't know if the text indicates just how much time has elapsed, but I felt it was at least a year. It seems that at first they needed only themselves, and then later Isabel, feeling something is missing, invited her friends to visit, and finally Maurice's; however, the friends never seemed to stick around very long and once again, M and I were left entirely to themselves and in a sort of isolation.
The second thing we see differently, is that when Maurice comes out of the barn with Bertie, Maurice is quite elated; yet in the prior scene, when he was sitting at the table with Isabel and Bertie, Maurice was not connecting with them at all, and he was in a low state of mind, feeling shut out; therefore he retreated to his own dark world in the barn. I think this was compounded by the unsure reasons he states to Bertie in the barn - about what his scar looks like and how he expresses his deepest insecurities. Below I posted that part of the text:

I think that passage clearly shows the insecurity that Maurice is feeling in relation to his wife. I think that actually, Bertie, now becomes the one outside source or 3rd party that Maurice can call upon to question and confide in about these feelings he has as a male. Bertie being male and Isabel being a woman will not understand in the same way. This is finally Maurice's chance to know the truth about things that had to be bothering him within his own mind and being. It is ironic and odd that this source of confidence should end up being Bertie. I feel that this comes about because Maurice is set appart at the table and he sees from a different perspective how well Isabel and Bertie can communicate platonically in a language based way. Whereas, Maurice does not approach his wife in this mannor and apparently does not feel secure enough to say to her - is my scar horrid, am I ugly, repulsive, am I a burden. What husband could say that really? I think that, therefore, Maurice is totally transformed when he emerges with Bertie from the barn. He has gained his self confidence and can move on now without being burdened by these inner thoughts of his own worthlessness.
Now the next part of the text:

You are quite convincing Janine. Yes Maurice is troubled and brooding. I did realize that but sort of glossed over it. I think it stems from having a wife that is a separate individual and therefore he cannot completely be self absorbed. He can't be a flower because he's human and has human interaction and an outside world that he has to live beside. I did want to hold off discussion on the climax until we understood Bertie. How abouot I come back to your points on the climax? I'll put out my thoughts on Bertie either later tonight or tomorrow.

Quark

03-17-2008, 09:49 PM

Janine

03-17-2008, 11:19 PM

Virgil

03-18-2008, 10:40 PM

You are quite convincing Janine. Yes Maurice is troubled and brooding. I did realize that but sort of glossed over it. I think it stems from having a wife that is a separate individual and therefore he cannot completely be self absorbed. He can't be a flower because he's human and has human interaction and an outside world that he has to live beside. I did want to hold off discussion on the climax until we understood Bertie. How abouot I come back to your points on the climax? I'll put out my thoughts on Bertie either later tonight or tomorrow.

OK Janine I'm convinced of the trouble spot inside Maurice. But I can't help but feel Lawrence is forcing it. For instance, compare these two paragraphs that come right after each other:

Pervin moved about almost unconsciously in his familiar surroundings, dark though everything was. He seemed to know the presence of objects before he touched them. It was a pleasure to him to rock thus through a world of things, carried on the flood in a sort of blood-prescience. He did not think much or trouble much. So long as he kept this sheer immediacy of blood-contact with the substantial world he was happy, he wanted no intervention of visual consciousness. In this state there was a certain rich positivity, bordering sometimes on rapture. Life seemed to move in him like a tide lapping, and advancing, enveloping all things darkly. It was a pleasure to stretch forth the hand and meet the unseen object, clasp it, and possess it in pure contact. He did not try to remember, to visualize. He did not want to. The new way of consciousness substituted itself in him.

The rich suffusion of this state generally kept him happy, reaching its culmination in the consuming passion for his wife. But at times the flow would seem to be checked and thrown back. Then it would beat inside him like a tangled sea, and he was tortured in the shattered chaos of his own blood. He grew to dread this arrest, this throw-back, this chaos inside himself, when he seemed merely at the mercy of his own powerful and conflicting elements. How to get some measure of control or surety, this was the question. And when the question rose maddening in him, he would clench his fists as if he would compel the whole universe to submit to him. But it was in vain. He could not even compel himself.

The first paragraph establishes Maurice as linked to blood consciousness, "the new way of consciousness." We all understand that. The second paragraph highlights the tortured part of his soul. But I can't help feel it's somewhat vague. I guess the source of the turmoil is the passion that is "checked and thrown back" at him. That's rather ambiguous, don't you think? It seems Lawrence doesn't quite know how to bring out this inner turmoil. If Maurice is in touch with blood consciousness, then how does Lawrence justify that there is a part of him that is not happy? It seems like he's put himself in a quandry. Ultimately I think we have to accept that Maurice is troubled with the outside world and retreats to where he is satisfied.

Dark Muse

03-18-2008, 10:51 PM

Sorry I have not been around lately to post much, but you guys have been doing a great job thus far. I have been trying to follow your posts, just have not really been able to contribute anything for the past few days.

You do make a good point here Virgil, I have not viewed it like that before, but it is true there does seem to be a contradiciton within Maurice, and in the way in which on the one hand, he seems to take solice in his isolation, and is happy when he retreats back to his own dark world, and the things which he knows, and yet on the other hand, he is shown as being made depressed becasue he feels left out of the world.

Isable and Muarice seem to have this sort of struggle, where though they are happy with each other, they also cannot seem to find complete satisfaction either in thier seculusion, or in the world at large.

Both seem to dissatisfy them to one exeten or the other, but they always seem to feel a certain bliss, when they do retreat back into thier own world and drive away others from them.

Janine

03-19-2008, 01:14 AM

Sorry, I can't respond to the posts directly or thoroughly. Good post Virgil, good comments from your post also DM.
I was out shopping again, so I got home quite late, and tired out. I am now watching a film - actually this amazing ballet based on Alexandre Dumas "Lady of the Camille", a book I am hoping to read soon....this dance production is so incredible and so elegant and sensual that I keep thinking - now they have achieved the 'blood consciousness' - there is no need for a word to be spoken, everything is being relayed via their bodies and the dance.
I am too tired to actually respond, but the one thing that stands out to me, is that in all of Lawrence's works, there is this impending question always. Our Lawrence was not entirely 100% sure of his own ideas, in my opinion. I ran up against some passages, last night, that made this quite clear to me in "Women in Love"; so I will ask you, Virgil, since you read much of Lawrence's work - does there exist a work by Lawrence wherein he does not contradict some ideas or thoughts he presents in a story/novel? I see this sort of conflict always prevalent throughout Lawrence's body of work, and yet I find it to be something that draws me further into his works. As Rilke says "Learn to love the questions." I think this wavering of feeling that Maurice is having is completely normal and also typical of Lawrence. Lawrence was enigmatic and complex and therefore, so are his characters - always. It is what makes his work totally fascinating to me. I like enigmas I suppose.

Virgil

03-19-2008, 07:30 AM

I am too tired to actually respond, but the one thing that stands out to me, is that in all of Lawrence's works, there is this impending question always. Our Lawrence was not entirely 100% sure of his own ideas, in my opinion. I ran up against some passages, last night, that made this quite clear to me in "Women in Love"; so I will ask you, Virgil, since you read much of Lawrence's work - does there exist a work by Lawrence wherein he does not contradict some ideas or thoughts he presents in a story/novel?

:lol: You're probably right. I'm not sure i can think of one. Although I think he is 100% sure of his ideas, it's just that he believes that contradictions serve best. I don't know if Lawrence knew William Blakes work. I think Blake was still undiscovered during Lawrence's lifetime, or perhpas it was just being discovered. But Blake had a theory similar to lawrence in which through opposites and contradictions that progress is made.

Janine

03-19-2008, 03:46 PM

:lol: You're probably right. I'm not sure i can think of one. Although I think he is 100% sure of his ideas, it's just that he believes that contradictions serve best. I don't know if Lawrence knew William Blakes work. I think Blake was still undiscovered during Lawrence's lifetime, or perhpas it was just being discovered. But Blake had a theory similar to lawrence in which through opposites and contradictions that progress is made.

Yeah, really - Lawrence thrived on contradictions. How many we can observe in his novels - such as S&L and WIL, especially WIL? Even within a chapter, Rupert is contradicting himself, even admitting it at times.
Actually, I thought I read Lawrence mention Blake once - it may have been in a letter or in a introductory note to one of his novels. I will look it up in my biographies. I believe he was well aware of Blake's existence and ideas. Now that would make perfect sense, because Lawrence basked in contradictions and opposities and enigmas. Everything Lawrence wrote that I can think of ends with a question or sense of questioning.

Quark

03-21-2008, 02:38 PM

I've been away at the Chekhov thread recently--Janine keeps writing these monster posts that I have to reply to--and I haven't gotten a chance to reply on this thread. I wanted to post, though. The conversation was just starting to get good here. We're starting to realize that this story isn't just a advertisement for "blood consciousness." There's conflict and ambiguity just like in any of the other stories we've read. There's quite a lot to respond to. I'll start with this:

OK Janine I'm convinced of the trouble spot inside Maurice. But I can't help but feel Lawrence is forcing it. For instance, compare these two paragraphs that come right after each other:

You think Lawrence can't write Maurice as troubled because he doesn't how he could be? If Lawrence doesn't believe Maurice should be conflicted, why would he bother writing about his problems at all? The terms that Lawrence uses to describe Maurice's problems are ambiguous, but all the terms he uses in this story are equally unclear. It's true we can more easily decipher what Lawrence means in the paragraphs about "blood consciousness", but that's only because we've talked about it previously. Many of us have even read stories like The White Peacock where this idea takes an extreme importance. As readers we're very sensitive to "blood consciousness" and so we recognize it with little prompting from the author. The paragraph that describes Maurice's problems is puzzling because it goes against some of our previous ideas about Maurice's character and Lawrence's attitudes about writing--and not because it's any more vaguely worded. His needs being "thrown back" onto him is no less clear of a phrase than his "sheer immediacy of blood-contact with the substantial world." What is different is our sensitivity to the words.

So, now that I just argued that things being "thrown back" is easy to understand, I guess I have come up with a description of what Lawrence means by saying that. I took away from that paragraph that Maurice's desires were going ungratified. The intimacy that he wants with his wife is being "thrown back" against him because his wife isn't satisfying that need. In a sense, the desire then comes back to him because it's not gratified by the wife. He then internalizes that desire and failure, and it eventually creates turmoil within him. It resurfaces at the end of the story when he descants on his own deformity.

Isable and Muarice seem to have this sort of struggle, where though they are happy with each other, they also cannot seem to find complete satisfaction either in thier seculusion, or in the world at large.

Both seem to dissatisfy them to one exeten or the other, but they always seem to feel a certain bliss, when they do retreat back into thier own world and drive away others from them.

Yeah, Lawrence says that Isabel gets "a sense of burden" after their periods of close intimacy, and that Maurice suffers from "black misery." The problem seems to be that Maurice wants all of his wife's love and attention and Isabel doesn't believe she can give him everything. The baby is a perfect example of this. Isabel feels even more split between the world and Maurice, and the words "burden" and "black moods" come up again in the paragraph describing the second child. Interestingly, the first child died during WW I when Maurice is away--thus, giving Maurice more of Isabel's attention. I don't think that the baby is, in itself, the problem of their relationship. I just think it exacerbates the problem that was already there.

Actually, I thought I read Lawrence mention Blake once - it may have been in a letter or in a introductory note to one of his novels. I will look it up in my biographies. I believe he was well aware of Blake's existence and ideas. Now that would make perfect sense, because Lawrence basked in contradictions and opposities and enigmas. Everything Lawrence wrote that I can think of ends with a question or sense of questioning.

The Blake connection is interesting. You would know better than I if L actually did read Blake or not. No matter the amount of direct influence, I think we can say there are some parallels. I agree with you about the opposites. That's one. Another might be in their rejections. Blake disliked how conventional morality prevented people from satisfying their desires. He wrote something like, "Sooner murder an infant in its cradle than nurse unacted desires." In similar fashion, Lawrence rejected the conventional intellectualism of his time--preferring that "blood consciousness" idea.

Hopefully this gets conversation going again. Where did everyone leave to? I guess we were all busy this month.

Janine

03-21-2008, 06:05 PM

Hopefully this gets conversation going again. Where did everyone leave to? I guess we were all busy this month.

Quark,

I'm here and I read your entire 'monster' post! I am trying now to absorb it all. I can't answer it now (going out soon), but thought maybe Virgil would want to jump in to reply anyway and I am sure Dark Muse will also comment, if she sees it.

I've been away at the Chekhov thread recently--Janine keeps writing these monster posts that I have to reply to--and I haven't gotten a chance to reply on this thread. I wanted to post, though. The conversation was just starting to get good here.
:lol: who me??? That is because I am desperately trying to keep your little Chekhov thread active and progressing. I am dedicated now to both threads....I am becoming a Chekhov advocate, afterall.
Quark - what? I thought the conversation, all along in here, has been interesting. We have posted now about 6 pages on this one story. That is nothing to sneeze at!

Still have to look up that Blake connection. I am sure I will find something.

Now get over to the Chekhov thread and answer my new 'monster' post - that should keep you busy for awhile!

Dark Muse

03-21-2008, 06:44 PM

So, now that I just argued that things being "thrown back" is easy to understand, I guess I have come up with a description of what Lawrence means by saying that. I took away from that paragraph that Maurice's desires were going ungratified. The intimacy that he wants with his wife is being "thrown back" against him because his wife isn't satisfying that need. In a sense, the desire then comes back to him because it's not gratified by the wife. He then internalizes that desire and failure, and it eventually creates turmoil within him. It resurfaces at the end of the story when he descants on his own deformity.

I think I somewhat disagree with you here. I personally do not get the feeling that he is truly disatiisfied with his wife, or the attention she gives to him, I do not feel as if he does beleive that her affections are inadaquate, though at times he might feel left out in momenents when she is with Bertie, and becasue of his blindness he feels there is a part of the world "the seeing" world as has been discussed, that he cannot sare with her, but I do not think his conflict is that he feels his is deficient.

The end of the story seems to suggest that his conflict is with himself, and with his own self-confidence issues, Isabel seems to be very devoted to him, but he fears becasue of his disablity, and his physcialy disfigurment, that he is no longer good enough for her or that he will be a burdon to her, but I do think Isabel has acted in any way to casue him to feel this way.

She had quite completely devoted herself to him, she even cut ties with her best friend Bertie, untill Maurice told Isabel she should invite him over.

Yeah, Lawrence says that Isabel gets "a sense of burden" after their periods of close intimacy, and that Maurice suffers from "black misery." The problem seems to be that Maurice wants all of his wife's love and attention and Isabel doesn't believe she can give him everything. The baby is a perfect example of this. Isabel feels even more split between the world and Maurice, and the words "burden" and "black moods" come up again in the paragraph describing the second child. Interestingly, the first child died during WW I when Maurice is away--thus, giving Maurice more of Isabel's attention. I don't think that the baby is, in itself, the problem of their relationship. I just think it exacerbates the problem that was already there.

Maurice went through a very traumatic exeprince in which he rather suddenly lost a part of himself, being his sight. And though in many ways he seems to fine a certian serenity in his blindness, and says that it is not so bad, and that he has even benefitied from it. A great change was still forced upon him of which he had no choice in, and I think, even if one tries to make the best of a situation, and even if they do find some advantages that they had not known before, there would still be moments of regeret for what was loss, and what they have no control over.

I think the core of thier troubles now, is Maurcie's feelings of low self-esteem becasue of his new found dependency and having to rely so much more upon Isabel and her having to take care of him, instead of him being able to take care of her, particualy knowing in his new condition he may be more of a burdon to her with the coming child, makes him feel in someways less of a man. In addition to his insecuritues over his physcial apperance and his wondering just what his wife sees when she looks at him. He tries to imerse himself in his work around the form and these tasks of labor to try and distract his mind from his worries.

And Isabel suffers from a sense of helplessness. She does not truly know what is going on with Maurice and in his mind, becasue he fears to speak openly to her of his doubts to continue to fullfill her and the fact that he fears she may now find him hideious, so when his despire comes over him, she feels there is nothing she can do and as a loving and devoted wife, she can only stand back and watch him suffer. So she too neds a way to take her mind from such things and where he turns to the work of the farm, she turns to the world she once new, her old friends, and society.

Janine

03-21-2008, 07:04 PM

DM I could only skim you post for now, but I say *thumbs up!*

Dark Muse

03-21-2008, 07:40 PM

Hehe thank you

Quark

03-22-2008, 12:04 AM

Quark[/b] - what? I thought the conversation, all along in here, has been interesting. We have posted now about 6 pages on this one story. That is nothing to sneeze at!

I wasn't complaining about your monster posts (they're quite welcome), and I certainly wasn't sneezing at the discussion. I was just explaining that I only have so many words I can type a night and most of them were being spent on the Chekhov thread.

I think I somewhat disagree with you here. I personally do not get the feeling that he is truly disatiisfied with his wife, or the attention she gives to him, I do not feel as if he does beleive that her affections are inadaquate, though at times he might feel left out in momenents when she is with Bertie, and becasue of his blindness he feels there is a part of the world "the seeing" world as has been discussed, that he cannot sare with her, but I do not think his conflict is that he feels his is deficient.

I'm not sure what else we can take away from those paragraphs Virgil quoted. Lawrence says "The rich suffusion of this state generally kept him happy, reaching its culmination in the consuming passion for his wife." So his main desire is for his wife. Then Lawrence goes on, "But at times the flow would seem to be checked and thrown back. Then it would beat inside him like a tangled sea...He grew to dread this arrest, this throwback, this chaos inside himself, when he seemed merely at the mercy of his own powerful and conflicting elements." So something checks his desire to possess his wife. This "something" can't be Maurice's self-doubt because that's described as the result of the check and not the cause. Lawrence tells us that only after the throw-back does he start to feel "at the mercy of his own powerful and conflicting elements." At the end of the story you're right that he voices a lot of negative opinions about himself. He asks whether he's deformed and laments that his wife has to be saddled with a guy like him. This isn't exactly self-esteem from the husband, but shouldn't he be somewhat worried? His wife is treating him like a burden and trying to console him. Isn't this the check that's throwing desires back at him?

And Isabel suffers from a sense of helplessness. She does not truly know what is going on with Maurice and in his mind, becasue he fears to speak openly to her of his doubts to continue to fullfill her and the fact that he fears she may now find him hideious, so when his despire comes over him, she feels there is nothing she can do and as a loving and devoted wife, she can only stand back and watch him suffer. So she too neds a way to take her mind from such things and where he turns to the work of the farm, she turns to the world she once new, her old friends, and society.

That's a good explanation of Isabel's anxiety with her husband. She does worry that his incomprehensible "black moods" may separate him and make him unhappy. Isabel does wish Maurice could open up and dispell some of her fears.

Dark Muse

03-22-2008, 12:13 AM

His wife is treating him like a burden and trying to console him. Isn't this the check that's throwing desires back at him?.

When I get the chance I will have to re-read over that paragraph within the story, but I really do not see where Isabel acutally treats Maurice like he is a burdon to her. It seems throughout, she remains quite devoted to him. Though she has fears and concenrs about dividing her attention between him and the baby, I do not see where she acutally does anything to make Maurice feel like a burdon to her. His feelings seem to be completely internal, steming from his own doubts and anxiety, not from anything she acutally does.

Janine

03-22-2008, 03:10 AM

Quark, I a curious to know where this number 545279 came from that appears in your post next to my name in what you quoted from me. Did you type that in by accident, next to my name? I deleted some cookies tonight and then tried to sign into Lit Net and it would not take my password, so I requested it and then they send me a new set of numbers(not the numbers in your post); I was hoping they would send me my old password, which was half numbers. I want to change back to my old password, but don't know how to go about it. Can anyone help me?

Anyway, I was half-joking with you about the Chekhov thread. Glad you appreciate my 'monster' posts.

I pretty much agree with your post, Quark, but then I disagree with the part of your post that Dark Muse pointed out and therefore I agree with her on those aspects of the story.

Dark Muse

03-23-2008, 04:26 AM

I went to re-read over the story, and particularly focus upon the paragraph dealing with the idea of the "throw-back" that Maurice experiences, which me and Quark have been discussing, and after reading the lines, as well as previous paragraph, I have come to understand and interpret the it a bit differently than Quark.

I believe that the "throw-back" is in fact referring to Maurice's sense blood consciousness, and not Isabel's affection, attention or love for him. As the paragraph just before it, talks in detail of Maurice's experiences with blood consciousness, and I think the key lines are at the very end of the paragraph, in helping us what is meant by the following paragraph.

So I will not retype the whole paragraph as I think it has been posted and discussed before, I will just quote those lines I think more important to this discussion.

He did not try to remember; to visualize. He did not want to. The new way of consciousness substituted itself in him.

The next paragraph than begins as:

The rich suffusion of this state generally kept him happy; reaching its culmination in the consuming passion for his wife

I think Maurice is speaking of this new found blood consciousness and the fact that the experience of it is only heightened further by the new intimacy and passion he shares with his wife now.

The paragraph than says:

But at times the flow would seem to be checked and thrown back

I believe this "flow" that is mentioned, is in fact his blood consciousness, and it is the blood conciseness than that is checked and thrown back. I do not think it was meant to suggest that it was in fact Isabel's love, of affection that was thrown back here, as the following lines, speak of a inner conflict within Maurice, with no indication that Isabel, or any other outside force are the cause of that conflict.

Then it would beat inside him like a tangled sea, and he was tortured in the shattered chaos of his own blood. He grew to dread this arrest, this throw-back, this chaos inside himself, when he seemed merely at the mercy of his own powerful and conflicting elements. How to get some measure of control and surety, this was the question. And when the question rose maddening in him, he would clench his fists as if he would compel the whole universe to submit to him. But it was in vain. He could not even compel himself.

Virgil

03-23-2008, 12:03 PM

You think Lawrence can't write Maurice as troubled because he doesn't how he could be? If Lawrence doesn't believe Maurice should be conflicted, why would he bother writing about his problems at all? The terms that Lawrence uses to describe Maurice's problems are ambiguous, but all the terms he uses in this story are equally unclear. It's true we can more easily decipher what Lawrence means in the paragraphs about "blood consciousness",
What disturbs (perhaps that's too strong a word, perhaps confuses is a better word, although I don't like that either) me is that if Muarice is satisfied in his blood consciousness, than why is he troubled? It seems to contradict itself. The resolution I reach is that he is satisfied in his isolation, but the outside world still exists and Maurice is human (not one of the farm animals) and has to come to some accomodation with the rational world. In fact it's interesting that at the climax he is feeling/touching Bertie's head, the seat of rationality.

Yeah, Lawrence says that Isabel gets "a sense of burden" after their periods of close intimacy, and that Maurice suffers from "black misery." The problem seems to be that Maurice wants all of his wife's love and attention and Isabel doesn't believe she can give him everything. The baby is a perfect example of this. Isabel feels even more split between the world and Maurice, and the words "burden" and "black moods" come up again in the paragraph describing the second child. Interestingly, the first child died during WW I when Maurice is away--thus, giving Maurice more of Isabel's attention. I don't think that the baby is, in itself, the problem of their relationship. I just think it exacerbates the problem that was already there.
Interesting, although I have my qualms with it. It seems Maurice is constantly seeking his isolation into the barn rather than insisting on his wife's attention.

Hopefully this gets conversation going again. Where did everyone leave to? I guess we were all busy this month.
Sorry Quark and everyone, I've just been busy and overwhelmed.

Virgil

03-23-2008, 12:06 PM

I think I somewhat disagree with you here. I personally do not get the feeling that he is truly disatiisfied with his wife, or the attention she gives to him, I do not feel as if he does beleive that her affections are inadaquate, though at times he might feel left out in momenents when she is with Bertie, and becasue of his blindness he feels there is a part of the world "the seeing" world as has been discussed, that he cannot sare with her, but I do not think his conflict is that he feels his is deficient.

The end of the story seems to suggest that his conflict is with himself, and with his own self-confidence issues, Isabel seems to be very devoted to him, but he fears becasue of his disablity, and his physcialy disfigurment, that he is no longer good enough for her or that he will be a burdon to her, but I do think Isabel has acted in any way to casue him to feel this way.

She had quite completely devoted herself to him, she even cut ties with her best friend Bertie, untill Maurice told Isabel she should invite him over.

Maurice went through a very traumatic exeprince in which he rather suddenly lost a part of himself, being his sight. And though in many ways he seems to fine a certian serenity in his blindness, and says that it is not so bad, and that he has even benefitied from it. A great change was still forced upon him of which he had no choice in, and I think, even if one tries to make the best of a situation, and even if they do find some advantages that they had not known before, there would still be moments of regeret for what was loss, and what they have no control over.

I think the core of thier troubles now, is Maurcie's feelings of low self-esteem becasue of his new found dependency and having to rely so much more upon Isabel and her having to take care of him, instead of him being able to take care of her, particualy knowing in his new condition he may be more of a burdon to her with the coming child, makes him feel in someways less of a man. In addition to his insecuritues over his physcial apperance and his wondering just what his wife sees when she looks at him. He tries to imerse himself in his work around the form and these tasks of labor to try and distract his mind from his worries.

And Isabel suffers from a sense of helplessness. She does not truly know what is going on with Maurice and in his mind, becasue he fears to speak openly to her of his doubts to continue to fullfill her and the fact that he fears she may now find him hideious, so when his despire comes over him, she feels there is nothing she can do and as a loving and devoted wife, she can only stand back and watch him suffer. So she too neds a way to take her mind from such things and where he turns to the work of the farm, she turns to the world she once new, her old friends, and society.

I think I agree with most here. Although I'm not sure about Maurice's self esteem. I would call it insecurity, if you can see a distinction.

Virgil

03-23-2008, 12:10 PM

I went to re-read over the story, and particularly focus upon the paragraph dealing with the idea of the "throw-back" that Maurice experiences, which me and Quark have been discussing, and after reading the lines, as well as previous paragraph, I have come to understand and interpret the it a bit differently than Quark.

I believe that the "throw-back" is in fact referring to Maurice's sense blood consciousness, and not Isabel's affection, attention or love for him. As the paragraph just before it, talks in detail of Maurice's experiences with blood consciousness, and I think the key lines are at the very end of the paragraph, in helping us what is meant by the following paragraph.

So I will not retype the whole paragraph as I think it has been posted and discussed before, I will just quote those lines I think more important to this discussion.

The next paragraph than begins as:

I think Maurice is speaking of this new found blood consciousness and the fact that the experience of it is only heightened further by the new intimacy and passion he shares with his wife now.

The paragraph than says:

I believe this "flow" that is mentioned, is in fact his blood consciousness, and it is the blood conciseness than that is checked and thrown back. I do not think it was meant to suggest that it was in fact Isabel's love, of affection that was thrown back here, as the following lines, speak of a inner conflict within Maurice, with no indication that Isabel, or any other outside force are the cause of that conflict.

Wow, good analysis D-M. I agree with that. It substantiates my claim that the difficulties that Maurice experiences are from the outside world checking (or interfereing or intruding) his blood consciousness connection.

I think that brings me up to date. :)

Janine

03-23-2008, 12:15 PM

Hi Everyone, Happy Easter! I have to just check in fast and quickly skim the posts. I read both, but only have time (for now) to comment on this part that you wrote, Virgil:

than why is he troubled? It seems to contradict itself. The resolution I reach is that he is satisfied in his isolation, but the outside world still exists and Maurice is human (not one of the farm animals) and has to come to some accomodation with the rational world.

Even while reading what Dark Muse wrote today, and now these comments of yours, V, I can't help but think this paragraph could apply to Lawrence, himself - talking autobiographical now. I recently read "Kangaroo", which is historically based on Lawrence and Freida's short time in Australia, and there is a passage where Richard Lovat (Lawrence) is actually condemplating this very thing - isolation or getting on with the outside world -he too is totally torn within and conflicted at times, as was Lawrence throughout his life. He also condradicts himself constantly. It seems that Richard's wife, Harriet (Frieda), has told him he must try to get on with others outside his/their contained isolated world, and there is always this conflict within that arises throughout the novel. This novel really explores Lawrence and Freida's married life in this respect and other conflicts, since they had now been married over 10 yrs when he wrote "Kangaroo". I see this very direct link to the ideas in this short story. When I read about Maurice and his feelings I can't help but think that often Lawrence felt this very same way, even though he was not blind. In someway he may have been blind to certain things, or one could say he had the keener sense has that Maurice has in the deeper 'blood consiciousness' way.

How funny, you two got two more posts in while I was labouring over this one!

Dark Muse

03-23-2008, 12:45 PM

I think I agree with most here. Although I'm not sure about Maurice's self esteem. I would call it insecurity, if you can see a distinction.

Acutally I agree, and that is what I orignaly ment to say. It was just one of those moments when I totally blanked on a word, and it was right there on the tip of my tounge, but for the life of me I could not bring it to mind.

Wow, good analysis D-M. I agree with that. It substantiates my claim that the difficulties that Maurice experiences are from the outside world checking (or interfereing or intruding) his blood consciousness connection.

Thank you

Quark

03-24-2008, 12:08 AM

Quark, I a curious to know where this number 545279 came from that appears in your post next to my name in what you quoted from me. Did you type that in by accident, next to my name?

I saw that after I posted. I think I clipped a bracket from the quote command, and it wrote out the post number which usually stays hidden. No, I wasn't trying to clandestinely communicate something to you, although that would have been cool.

I have come to understand and interpret the it a bit differently than Quark.

I don't think you're interpretation is that different. You're just putting more weight on Virgil's argument that Maurice is the victim of outside meddling which makes him feel insecure. This is certainly there, no doubt. The Bertie episode that follows after the paragraph is a good example of this. Outside of the that, you do also bring up that Maurice is somewhat traumatized by his blindness. There is some evidence of this, too. Yet, there is another dimension of the married couple's trouble that doesn't have anything to do with outside influence or Maurice's trauma. This is the strain Isabel feels because she's torn between duties. She wants to be a wife, but she still wants to be a friend to Bertie and mother to her child. And, as I said earlier, things like the baby are not in themselves the problem, but they do exacerbate the underlying problems. It's particularly exacerbating when Maurice is in one of his "blood consciousness" moods which culminate in a passion for his wife.

I believe that the "throw-back" is in fact referring to Maurice's sense blood consciousness, and not Isabel's affection, attention or love for him. As the paragraph just before it, talks in detail of Maurice's experiences with blood consciousness, and I think the key lines are at the very end of the paragraph, in helping us what is meant by the following paragraph.

Yeah, that paragraph is talking about Maurice's sense of "blood consciousness", but the first sentence is "The rich suffusion of this state generally kept him happy; reaching its culmination in the consuming passion for his wife." His "blood consciousness" reaches its culmination in "the consumming passion for his wife." So, yes we're talking about "blood consiousness" but we're talking about it when it reaches the point of Maurice desiring his wife. When the next sentence is "But at times the flow would seemed to be checked and thrown back", it means that, yes, Maurice's "blood consciousness" is being thrown back. But, it means more specifically his "blood consciousness" that ends with him desiring his wife is being thrown back.

I think Maurice is speaking of this new found blood consciousness and the fact that the experience of it is only heightened further by the new intimacy and passion he shares with his wife now.

Well, the word Lawrence uses is "culminate" which is a little different. Culminate means it ends in his passion for his wife, whereas heighten would mean that his passion for his wife is just a part of his "blood consciousness." While this probably seems insignificant, it is important for trying to decide what the subject of the next sentence is. With L using culminate, it means that Maurice's passion is what's being checked and not just "blood consciousness."

I believe this "flow" that is mentioned, is in fact his blood consciousness, and it is the blood conciseness than that is checked and thrown back. I do not think it was meant to suggest that it was in fact Isabel's love, of affection that was thrown back here, as the following lines, speak of a inner conflict within Maurice, with no indication that Isabel, or any other outside force are the cause of that conflict.

You're right it's not Isabel's love which is thrown back; it's Maurice's desire which is. In general, yes, Maurice's "blood consciousness" is checked at times in this story, and that does lead to him feeling depressed or anxious. But, in this paragraph, Lawrence specifies something a little more narrow than just "blood consciousness" in general.

Hopefully that makes sense and it didn't bore people too much. I didn't mean to go to such great lengths over one paragraph.

Dark Muse

03-24-2008, 01:22 AM

Yet, there is another dimension of the married couple's trouble that doesn't have anything to do with outside influence or Maurice's trauma. This is the strain Isabel feels because she's torn between duties. She wants to be a wife, but she still wants to be a friend to Bertie and mother to her child. And, as I said earlier, things like the baby are not in themselves the problem, but they do exacerbate the underlying problems. It's particularly exacerbating when Maurice is in one of his "blood consciousness" moods which culminate in a passion for his wife.

It seems the underlining problem the two of them are having is Maurice's inabaity to communicate to Isabel the reasons for his sense of depression. He does not know how to talk to her about his doubts and fears he has regaurding his insecurity about his blindness and her sense in helplessness for not understanding what is going on.

Her desire to want to see Bertie, or invite the outside world in, seems to stem from her need to distract her mind from the sense of helplessness she feels about Maurice, just as Maurice tries to distract his mind from his fears, by turning to the work on the farm.

But they both seem happiest when the retreat back into thier solitude with each other. Thier efforts to interact with others always ends up failing in the end.

Well, the word Lawrence uses is "culminate" which is a little different. Culminate means it ends in his passion for his wife, whereas heighten would mean that his passion for his wife is just a part of his "blood consciousness." While this probably seems insignificant, it is important for trying to decide what the subject of the next sentence is. With L using culminate, it means that Maurice's passion is what's being checked and not just "blood consciousness."

You're right it's not Isabel's love which is thrown back; it's Maurice's desire which is. In general, yes, Maurice's "blood consciousness" is checked at times in this story, and that does lead to him feeling depressed or anxious. But, in this paragraph, Lawrence specifies something a little more narrow than just "blood consciousness" in general.

Other than that one example which is left a bit vauge, I do not see any evidence within the story elsewhere that seems to suggest Isabel does anything to check, or throw-back Maurice's passion or thier intimacy together.

And the following lines, state that whatever anxieties Maurice is going through, are coming from within himself. Though it does not acutally seem to indicate such within the story, Maurice might inwardly feel as if his desire is being thrown-back, but he is not given any real reason from his wife to belive this, from what I can see.

Quark

03-24-2008, 10:04 AM

It seems the underlining problem the two of them are having is Maurice's inabaity to communicate to Isabel the reasons for his sense of depression. He does not know how to talk to her about his doubts and fears he has regaurding his insecurity about his blindness and her sense in helplessness for not understanding what is going on.

Her desire to want to see Bertie, or invite the outside world in, seems to stem from her need to distract her mind from the sense of helplessness she feels about Maurice, just as Maurice tries to distract his mind from his fears, by turning to the work on the farm.

But they both seem happiest when the retreat back into thier solitude with each other. Thier efforts to interact with others always ends up failing in the end.

Alright, but however you want to frame their problems, it matters very little in that paragraph.

Other than that one example which is left a bit vauge, I do not see any evidence within the story elsewhere that seems to suggest Isabel does anything to check, or throw-back Maurice's passion or thier intimacy together.

I'm not saying that Isabel is intentionally checking Maurice. I was only pointing out that her split attention puts a strain on their relationship which might be some of the reason why Maurice feels like his love and desire is checked sometime. I did quote some stuff about this in my other posts.

And the following lines, state that whatever anxieties Maurice is going through, are coming from within himself. Though it does not acutally seem to indicate such within the story, Maurice might inwardly feel as if his desire is being thrown-back, but he is not given any real reason from his wife to belive this, from what I can see.

Lawrence says, "But at times the flow would seem to be checked and thrown back. Then it would beat inside him." It says "then"--meaning that this comes after the check. All the rest of the paragraph explains the aftermath of the check and not the check itself. The rest is about what's going on inside of him, but that doesn't mean the check comes from within.

Janine

03-24-2008, 01:27 PM

I have been reading all of your posts; staying in the background is kind of interesting; because you know me, normally I write those 'epic' posts. You two could debate this issue until doomsday I believe, but I think you will come up with only one true explanation, for the conflict between Maurice and Isabel or the comflict within Maurice, the second being more prominent.
The conflict is much as I stated before. I seem to have gotten skimmed over (post #1221). Lawrence and his own wife were not that different than this couple in "The Blind Man" in this way - that Lawrence and Frieda, as man and wife, had a great passion between them, what Lawrence would term the 'blood consciousness'; however, at times this was 'thrown back' for Lawrence, and many conflicts would arise 'within' Lawrence, and there would also be direct 'confrontations' with Freida. When I read this part of this story, it very much reminded me of parts of L's novels, where Lawrence has his protagonist(representing L's thoughts) condemplating this very thing in a relationship and never truly arriving at a final, or practical, solution to this aspect of married life. I think that Lawrence was very much a idealist and had a 'great intensity' at times, that he himself felt difficult to deal with on a daily basis. I was reading about another artist with TB and it was said, this actually was a sign/sumptom of the illness - this intensity and over-sensitivity. I feel that when Lawrence wrote this story, he very closely could identify with his character of Maurice. Like Maurice, Lawrence also was damaged and did not always feel comfortable in the 'social' world; and from that damage he became 'overly sensitive'; this is what makes L such a great novelist and an artist. Consider this: that this damage was both pychological (his mother/family influences) and physical (his lifelong battle with his lungs). Many times in L's stories these deeper thoughts are manifest in his work; they surface in the form of other characters, who were imagined/formed by Lawrence, and convey his ideas. These inner thoughts were of a kind of deep human confusion and I am not sure they can ever be totally understood by one, who does not experience what Lawrence felt. We can only imagine at the way that Maurice and Isabel feel. Human relationships are very complex. I don't know if we can reliably state in words, just what is going on in the passages about these feelings that both are experiencing. I think that we can sense this as Maurice senses things, but to actually resolve this issue is beyond our total comprehension.
I hope all that makes some sense. I think I need more coffee.

Hope everyone had a nice Easter or spring day!

Virgil

03-24-2008, 01:55 PM

Good post Janine. The only objection i would have is that isabel does not strike me as Frieda. But you would know better. But Lawrence was an idealist (except for the contradictions which I think he includes to infuse realism into the work) and Maurice seems to be created as a character molded with Lawrence's ideal of blood consciousness.

Janine

03-25-2008, 03:34 PM

Virgil, thanks for that compliment and reading my posts; glad you understood what I was getting at. No, I did not think Isabel like Freida, even though I was drawing the comparisons of the married couples. No, I only felt that the feelings that Maurice was having, about being sociable and about his confusions in the love of his wife, were very much like Lawrence's own thoughts and struggles, at times. I will try and post an excerpt from "Kangaroo" and you will see what I am driving at. That book in one chapter especially, really explored this complex and confusing state that Richard (Lawrence) was experiencing internally, at the time. I found this one chapter extremely interesting and revealing of Lawrence's ideas and thoughts on marriage and the social aspects of life outside his marriage.

For now, I can't post because I am so busy and have to go out again today. This week might be a busy one for me, because on Sunday we are planning the baby shower for my daughter-in-law and son. Therefore I may be in and out of this thread sporadically. I think basically we have commented on the entire story rather thoroughly. What do you think everyone?

Dark Muse

03-25-2008, 03:51 PM

I would have to agree, I think we have very throughly gone over all the points within the story, and covered it quite well.

Virgil

03-25-2008, 03:52 PM

I would like tocover the climax before we end it. I'll do so when i get home tonight. And hopefully find my book. I can't seem to find where I placed it.

SleepyWitch

03-25-2008, 05:18 PM

Dark Muse

03-25-2008, 05:21 PM

Also, so far all the stories we have dicussed here can be found online, if you are unable to get a book.

We are currently discussing The Blind Man

Janine

03-25-2008, 05:22 PM

I would like tocover the climax before we end it. I'll do so when i get home tonight. And hopefully find my book. I can't seem to find where I placed it.

Sure thing. Take your time. I hope you can find your book, but if not, the full-text is on this site. There still is a few more days left in this month, until we go onto a new story. Virgil, can I choose the new one again? I can email you and let you know, which ones I might be considering. I had read a number of L's stories last month, when I was sick and recouperating, so I could choose from one of those. Also, I plan on reading a few more in the next few days.
I am taking a sort of short break from posting currently. I need a rest badly. I will start up next month. This week may be quite busy for me, but I will check in when you post your comments on the climax. Will be interested to hear what you have to say about that scene.

Quark

03-25-2008, 10:35 PM

The conflict is much as I stated before. I seem to have gotten skimmed over (post #1221). Lawrence and his own wife were not that different than this couple in "The Blind Man" in this way - that Lawrence and Frieda, as man and wife, had a great passion between them, what Lawrence would term the 'blood consciousness'; however, at times this was 'thrown back' for Lawrence, and many conflicts would arise 'within' Lawrence,

I read your post (both posts), and I think that's a good description of their problems. Thanks for filling in this part of the story with some biographical info. I didn't respond to it earlier because I agreed with it; and, with so many posts, it would get tedious nodding to everything that's well put.

I would like tocover the climax before we end it. I'll do so when i get home tonight. And hopefully find my book. I can't seem to find where I placed it.

Did we not comment on that? I guess it depends on what you call the climax.

hey you guys, I tried to take out a collection of D.H. Lawrence's short stories at the public library today, so I could join your group. but it was either taken out or they don't have it. I'll try again at my univ library tomorrow.

If that fails, you could always pick up a cheap used copy on Amazon. Or, you could do what Janine does and print off the story straight from LitNet. In any case hope you can join in. We need some new people, or else we're going to get all cliqueish in here.

Janine

03-25-2008, 11:16 PM

hey you guys, I tried to take out a collection of D.H. Lawrence's short stories at the public library today, so I could join your group. but it was either taken out or they don't have it. I'll try again at my univ library tomorrow. which story are you discussing at the moment/ will you be discussing next?

Hi there SleepWitch, so glad to see you here and certainly hope you can join in next month. You will love these discussions. So far they have been great. We have a good group and you will be an added asset for certain. I think the beginning of April would be a good time for you to start. We are pretty much done with this current story, even though it is a fine story and you might want to read it anyway, on your own.
I will probably pick the next story, since I read quite a number of L's short stories last month, in order to find some good/interesting ones for the thread. I will probably read more this week or by Monday and post something on Monday; that is if, everyone is in agreement that I can, once again, choose the story. I know so many of them and own all three of the books in the "Lawrence Complete Short Stories" set, so I guess I have earned 'Lawrence seniority'. In Chekhov thread, Quark has 'Chekhov seniority'.;) We are waiting on him now to pick a new story, right Q?

As Quark, pointed out, I have been printing out the stories in the Chekhov thread, for myself. I also do this: I copy the story first to my Word program and then send a 'short-cut' to my desktop. This really makes it easy when reviewing the text and posting quoted passages.

When I choose the next L story, I will also post a link to the story text online. Most can be found right here on this site, but some we needed to find other places on the internet.

Yes, the more participants the more interesting the thread is. Glad you found your way here SW! Welcome!:)

SleepyWitch

03-26-2008, 03:54 AM

As Quark, pointed out, I have been printing out the stories in the Chekhov thread, for myself. I also do this: I copy the story first to my Word program and then send a 'short-cut' to my desktop. This really makes it easy when reviewing the text and posting quoted passages.

that's a really neat idea! But as for reading them, I can't read on the comp. at all. I'm sure I can get them at the English department's library, though :)
I don't know anything about Lawrence or short stories in general :( will check in a Lit encyclopedia at univ today

Virgil

03-26-2008, 06:57 AM

Oh, sorry I couldn't be on last night. I had a personal emergency. Mom got a blood clot in her leg (for those that don't know she's been in rehab after a hip replacement operation at the beginning of the month) and had to be taken to the emergency room.

Quark, I take the climax to be the touch exchange between Maurice and Bertie. I have a point or two to make about it.

Sleepy: Glad to have you on board. Janine would like to pick the next story. I didn't think we did this on a monthly basis but on whenever we felt we had exhausted a particular story. I think we are near completing the current story, "The Blind Man."

Janine: Let me know which story you would like to discuss next.

Janine

03-26-2008, 02:52 PM

that's a really neat idea! But as for reading them, I can't read on the comp. at all. I'm sure I can get them at the English department's library, though :)

Glad you like the suggestion. It came to me one day; it would be so much easier that way. I can keep it minimized on my bottom bar and bring it up periodically, when I need to refer to the text, or quote something. Also, once I made two shortcuts, used one to highlight the areas I wanted to discuss and then wrote a commentary, as I reviewed the text in another window. I am sort of window happy somedays!;) One can tile vertically also, to pull all the windows up at once on the screen.

SleepyWitch, I can't read well from the screen either; we 'glasses' folks can't. I even wear biofocals and can't see the type right. I usually have to take them off to see the screen and sit close, then I get a backache.:( Anyway, I can only read and review segments on the screen, so I print out the whole story and usually read it in bed, before I go to sleep.

Yes, your university should have the stories or can you request your library get them for you? Lawrence's short stories are usually in 3 separate volumes I,II,III. I bought 2 of mine cheap from Amazon, used ones.

I don't know anything about Lawrence or short stories in general :( will check in a Lit encyclopedia at univ today

Good idea to read a little about Lawrence's biography, in the Lit encyclopedia; also online there is much information. This site has a short biop and Wikipedia is helpful with a longer biop and links to other sites.

Quote by Virgil:

Oh, sorry I couldn't be on last night. I had a personal emergency. Mom got a blood clot in her leg (for those that don't know she's been in rehab after a hip replacement operation at the beginning of the month) and had to be taken to the emergency room.

How is she today?

Quark, I take the climax to be the touch exchange between Maurice and Bertie. I have a point or two to make about it.

Yes, I think you told us in an earlier post that was what you considered as the climax. I will be anxious to hear what you have to say about it.

Sleepy: Glad to have you on board. Janine would like to pick the next story. I didn't think we did this on a monthly basis but on whenever we felt we had exhausted a particular story. I think we are near completing the current story, "The Blind Man."

Thanks, so you are in agreement I can pick again. Well, let's just say, if it runs over the month, then we can sometimes continue and wait til we pick the next one, especially with the longer stories - such as "The Prussian Officer" that was three parts and about what - 30+ pages. I think with this particular story, which is fairly short, if we discuss it much longer we will be quilty of 'beating it to death'. So we should wrap up discussions soon on this story, what do you think, V? Post your final comments on the ending and the climax; then we will move on.

Janine: Let me know which story you would like to discuss next.
I have to review them this week/weekend and let everyone know. I have read quite a few so far. I will be thinking about it in the next few days, so I will email you with suggestions,V, ok?
I will try to keep it to a short one again for everyone's sake. I know I will be busy this coming month, with spring arriving, etc.

islandclimber

03-27-2008, 02:40 AM

Well, I read The Blind Man, seeing as that appears to be what you are discussing at the moment... and I have to say I quite liked it... Lawrence does seem to almost lose himself inside the characters at times and it is something I love in a writer (explaining my love for Dostoevsky), so if you all don't mind and have space for another lost soul wandering aimlessly on a literary highway, could I please, please join the discussion!:D

well, as I see you are just wrapping up with this story as well, I guess I will just say what I took from it, some basic thoughts... By the way, in reading over the posts previously made upon this story, there is a lot there that helps make the story even more interesting, things I didn't think of, or notice.. so thank you all...

I found the gulf between Maurice and Isabel to be quite interesting... it seems as though the nearness necessitated by his blindness and their ensuing failure to retain friendship with anyone else, it seems it only drives a further wedge between them on another level... It is almost as though they strive too hard to retain and keep the intense passion burning, as though they, almost to an insincere and faked, degree are only interested in one another and all else bores them, or at least they seem to try and convince themselves to make up for possible shortcomings... or so i found...

But the problem I found for them, is that Maurice seems unable to relate to Isabel in a physical/visceral sense any longer although he depends on it, and Isabel seems to be always wondering if there is something deeper inside Maurice that is hidden from even her, inaccessible to all... and the biggest issue in all this is that Maurice is more of a corporeal nature sort, whereas Isabel is more of strength of mind, explaining her friendship with Bertie and her sometimes disillusionment with the slow nature of Maurice... But I found Maurice, now blind cannot express his thoughts and feelings, and their moments of intense happiness are those when he does not have to... but being blind he cannot depend on this any longer, and he broods as to whether he can make her happy, whether she is sad with him, and that explains why he asks Bertie at the end... and Isabel knows he is constantly brooding and somewhat melancholy outside of their moments of being completely alone with the passion of viscerality, but she cannot understand it, cannot relate, cannot comprehend this, for Maurice cannot let it out, is unable to explain, and she, seems unable to search his depths for it, maybe due to the fact she can no longer look into his eyes... they seem lost with each other when others are around, or when thinking of what they are doing to one another, it is only when they let go of all this, and allow passion to rule that they are happy and content with one another, and can think of other as such as well...

the climax, I found to be Bertie's hands held to Maurice's eyes... It is quite a powerful scene.. Maurice has brought Bertie into an intimacy no one else, besides Isabel, and maybe not even the same with Isabel, but no one else has seen or felt, or known... He has made Bertie a lover of sorts, and Bertie is unable to handle this intimacy, it almost destroys him... in a sense it does... but on the contrary it rejuvenates Maurice, it allows him to relate again to someone, and I believe allows him to draw closer to Isabel and relax his grip on melancholy brooding on her happiness... and all this because he cannot realize Bertie's reaction of dread.. though you would think he would feel it... hmmm... maybe he does but it is irrelevant to him, he loves him with friendship all the same, having opened himself up in the only way he knows, the physical body... and now he knows Bertie is okay... he isn't the aloof, ironical, somewhat superior scotsman he had thought... For even I found Bertie's questioning about

'And that is a relief,' said Bertie. 'But what is there in place of the bothering? What replaces the activity?'

There was a pause. At length the blind man replied, as out of a negligent, unattentive thinking:

'Oh, I don't know. There's a good deal when you're not active.'

'Is there?' said Bertie. 'What, exactly? It always seems to me that when there is no thought and no action, there is nothing.'

Again Maurice was slow in replying.

'There is something,' he replied. 'I couldn't tell you what it is.'

I found that to be slightly offensive, not awful, definitely not malignant or on purpose, but I believe it would have bothered and offended Maurice,... and then Bertie continues with it at Isabel when Maurice leaves... and I think he doesn't understand it for neither can explain, Maurice knows it, Isabel sense it but can't understand it, and Bertie feels the power of it, through the new intimacy at the end... his reserve has been cracked and not by a woman... but by a blind man, he feels that something else and his "insane reserve" wilts against its power... he is helpless, and his self in that sense is destroyed... whereas Maurice is elated by knowing someone else can feel it... and Isabel is torn between the two.. the elation of Maurice, and the destruction of Bertie...

Lastly I do believe Bertie is homosexual, though I could be entirely out in left field here, but I believe it is implied... which is why it is the man who cracks his mollusk shell, and melts away his reserve, and he is terrified of this intimacy because of it... I believe it is hinted at all the way to this point, with all the comments about his inability to be anything but a friend of women, and the end clinches it..

Great story.. and I look forward to reading more your thoughts... and of course, the next story..

cheers:)

Virgil

03-27-2008, 08:32 AM

Hey welcome to the conversation Climber. I'm glad you liked the story and D.H. Lawrence. He really is a great short story writer. I'm also glad you pushed the conversation to the climax. I've been meaning to, but some personal issues have really preoccupied me lately. Let me see if I can respond to some of your thoughts.

Well, I read The Blind Man, seeing as that appears to be what you are discussing at the moment... and I have to say I quite liked it... Lawrence does seem to almost lose himself inside the characters at times and it is something I love in a writer (explaining my love for Dostoevsky), so if you all don't mind and have space for another lost soul wandering aimlessly on a literary highway, could I please, please join the discussion!:D

Yes, the more one reads Lawrence the more one finds this uncanny ability he has to get into the consciousness, and though I hate this term, the unconsciousness of the key characters.

I found the gulf between Maurice and Isabel to be quite interesting... it seems as though the nearness necessitated by his blindness and their ensuing failure to retain friendship with anyone else, it seems it only drives a further wedge between them on another level... It is almost as though they strive too hard to retain and keep the intense passion burning, as though they, almost to an insincere and faked, degree are only interested in one another and all else bores them, or at least they seem to try and convince themselves to make up for possible shortcomings... or so i found...
Are you saying the nearness between the married couple drives a wedge between them? My interpretation has been that they are quite satisfied with each other and the relationship but that the outside world seems to intrude. But I think that requires some modification which I think your observation suggests. It's like they have done that (be happy with each other) so what's next? It's been a year or so, now what? They as a couple need to do something else because they can't remain static. Human longings take over, although I suspect that maurice would be quite happy in his elemnt if he were left alone. But he's not alone, he's married and linked with Isabel and as a couple they can't just remain static.

But the problem I found for them, is that Maurice seems unable to relate to Isabel in a physical/visceral sense any longer
I'm not sure I see that. Where in the text do you think that's suggested? He's certainly has impregnated her, so they have intimacy.

and Isabel seems to be always wondering if there is something deeper inside Maurice that is hidden from even her, inaccessible to all...
That I completely agree with. It's that other world consciousness that Maurice has.

and the biggest issue in all this is that Maurice is more of a corporeal nature sort, whereas Isabel is more of strength of mind, explaining her friendship with Bertie and her sometimes disillusionment with the slow nature of Maurice... But I found Maurice, now blind cannot express his thoughts and feelings, and their moments of intense happiness are those when he does not have to... but being blind he cannot depend on this any longer, and he broods as to whether he can make her happy, whether she is sad with him, and that explains why he asks Bertie at the end... and Isabel knows he is constantly brooding and somewhat melancholy outside of their moments of being completely alone with the passion of viscerality, but she cannot understand it, cannot relate, cannot comprehend this, for Maurice cannot let it out, is unable to explain, and she, seems unable to search his depths for it, maybe due to the fact she can no longer look into his eyes... they seem lost with each other when others are around, or when thinking of what they are doing to one another, it is only when they let go of all this, and allow passion to rule that they are happy and content with one another, and can think of other as such as well...
I think this has been discussed and we pretty much agree.

the climax, I found to be Bertie's hands held to Maurice's eyes... It is quite a powerful scene.. Maurice has brought Bertie into an intimacy no one else, besides Isabel, and maybe not even the same with Isabel, but no one else has seen or felt, or known... He has made Bertie a lover of sorts, and Bertie is unable to handle this intimacy, it almost destroys him... in a sense it does... but on the contrary it rejuvenates Maurice, it allows him to relate again to someone, and I believe allows him to draw closer to Isabel and relax his grip on melancholy brooding on her happiness... and all this because he cannot realize Bertie's reaction of dread.. though you would think he would feel it... hmmm... maybe he does but it is irrelevant to him, he loves him with friendship all the same, having opened himself up in the only way he knows, the physical body... and now he knows Bertie is okay... he isn't the aloof, ironical, somewhat superior scotsman he had thought... For even I found Bertie's questioning about
Completely agree. When I get home tonight (I'm at work now) hopefully I'll have time to go through that climax scene and pull out further thoughts.

I found that to be slightly offensive, not awful, definitely not malignant or on purpose, but I believe it would have bothered and offended Maurice
What is it you find offensive?

and then Bertie continues with it at Isabel when Maurice leaves... and I think he doesn't understand it for neither can explain, Maurice knows it, Isabel sense it but can't understand it, and Bertie feels the power of it, through the new intimacy at the end... his reserve has been cracked and not by a woman... but by a blind man, he feels that something else and his "insane reserve" wilts against its power... he is helpless, and his self in that sense is destroyed... whereas Maurice is elated by knowing someone else can feel it... and Isabel is torn between the two.. the elation of Maurice, and the destruction of Bertie...
Yes I wanted to bring this out about Bertie. Why is he destroyed by this simple exchange? His identity rests soley on a mental consciousness, and the touch with this other worlld, this blood consciousness, this world that animals reside in, is as repelant as oil and water. This contact aniliates (sp?) his very identity. While Maurice enlarges his world by the contact, Bertie shrinks from it.

Lastly I do believe Bertie is homosexual, though I could be entirely out in left field here, but I believe it is implied...
Not at all out of field. The story behind the story is that Bertie is modeled on Bertram Russell, the philosopher, who at one point was friends with Lawrence, and which they had a famous break. Lawrence realized Russell was pure mental consciousness (especially the type of philosophy Russell was involved with) and was removed from tangible real life, and one who complete doesn't grasp what Lawrence referred to as blood consciousness.

which is why it is the man who cracks his mollusk shell, and melts away his reserve, and he is terrified of this intimacy because of it... I believe it is hinted at all the way to this point, with all the comments about his inability to be anything but a friend of women, and the end clinches it..
Can you elaborate on that? I've wondered why Bertie is incapeable of intimacy and it's linked by implication to his homosexuality. Homosexuality creeps into a number of Lawrence's works and some critics have thought he was a closet homosexual or a repressed homosexual. My reading of Lawrence is that he isn't, but i guess it's a contrversy. I think people confuse our current understanding of homosexuality with whatever notion Lawrence had of it. I think Lawrence has a particualr understanding of homosexuality in this story, and i'm not sure I know what it is. For instance, Maurice gets a sort of pleasure out of this exchange, and we know he's not homosexual.

Dark Muse

03-27-2008, 12:20 PM

Quark

03-27-2008, 01:19 PM

Lastly I do believe Bertie is homosexual, though I could be entirely out in left field here, but I believe it is implied... which is why it is the man who cracks his mollusk shell, and melts away his reserve, and he is terrified of this intimacy because of it... I believe it is hinted at all the way to this point, with all the comments about his inability to be anything but a friend of women, and the end clinches it..

I've wondered why Bertie is incapeable of intimacy and it's linked by implication to his homosexuality. Homosexuality creeps into a number of Lawrence's works and some critics have thought he was a closet homosexual or a repressed homosexual. My reading of Lawrence is that he isn't, but i guess it's a contrversy.

Hey look, I was not the only one. When we first started talking about the story, the very first thing I said, was that I got the impression that he was a homoxexual.

I thought the point with Bertie is that he's incapable of intimacy with women and men. Homosexuality would clash with the characterization of him as a nervous, distant type of person because it would mean that he really does desire relationships--just not in the usual sense. The other characters look at him as asexual or neuter, and this is probably closer to the truth. Besides, if he were gay, he probably would be turned on by that last scene.

islandclimber

03-27-2008, 03:09 PM

Are you saying the nearness between the married couple drives a wedge between them? My interpretation has been that they are quite satisfied with each other and the relationship but that the outside world seems to intrude. But I think that requires some modification which I think your observation suggests. It's like they have done that (be happy with each other) so what's next? It's been a year or so, now what? They as a couple need to do something else because they can't remain static. Human longings take over, although I suspect that maurice would be quite happy in his elemnt if he were left alone. But he's not alone, he's married and linked with Isabel and as a couple they can't just remain static.

I agree completely, this is what I was trying to say, you just put it much better...

I'm not sure I see that. Where in the text do you think that's suggested? He's certainly has impregnated her, so they have intimacy.
I'm not sure.. for some reason I get the feel the physical intimacy they have Maurice seems to be hurt by it at times, again it is just a feeling I got witht nothing really to back it up... it seems though they are intimate, he broods on it as well..

What is it you find offensive?
I don't know if offensive was the right way to put it... it just seems that Bertie is being the ironic and too smart Scot that Maurice disliked so much in earlier explanation of why the two men disliked each other... it seems he is prodding and Maurice is uncomfortable with it... so maybe not offensive, just not the right way to behave with Maurice at the time...

Yes I wanted to bring this out about Bertie. Why is he destroyed by this simple exchange? His identity rests soley on a mental consciousness, and the touch with this other worlld, this blood consciousness, this world that animals reside in, is as repelant as oil and water. This contact aniliates (sp?) his very identity. While Maurice enlarges his world by the contact, Bertie shrinks from it.

I agree completely:thumbs_up

By Virgil
Not at all out of field. The story behind the story is that Bertie is modeled on Bertram Russell, the philosopher, who at one point was friends with Lawrence, and which they had a famous break. Lawrence realized Russell was pure mental consciousness (especially the type of philosophy Russell was involved with) and was removed from tangible real life, and one who complete doesn't grasp what Lawrence referred to as blood consciousness.

Quote:
which is why it is the man who cracks his mollusk shell, and melts away his reserve, and he is terrified of this intimacy because of it... I believe it is hinted at all the way to this point, with all the comments about his inability to be anything but a friend of women, and the end clinches it..

Can you elaborate on that? I've wondered why Bertie is incapeable of intimacy and it's linked by implication to his homosexuality. Homosexuality creeps into a number of Lawrence's works and some critics have thought he was a closet homosexual or a repressed homosexual. My reading of Lawrence is that he isn't, but i guess it's a contrversy. I think people confuse our current understanding of homosexuality with whatever notion Lawrence had of it. I think Lawrence has a particualr understanding of homosexuality in this story, and i'm not sure I know what it is. For instance, Maurice gets a sort of pleasure out of this exchange, and we know he's not homosexual.

By Quark
I thought the point with Bertie is that he's incapable of intimacy with women and men. Homosexuality would clash with the characterization of him as a nervous, distant type of person because it would mean that he really does desire relationships--just not in the usual sense. The other characters look at him as asexual or neuter, and this is probably closer to the truth. Besides, if he were gay, he probably would be turned on by that last scene.

I found this on wikipedia about Lawrence...

While writing Women in Love, Lawrence developed a sexual relationship, in the town of Tregerthen, with a Cornish farmer named William Henry Hocking.[citation needed] The affair, though brief, seems to indicate that Lawrence's fascination with themes of homosexuality related to his own sexual orientation. Indeed, in a letter written during 1913, he writes, "I should like to know why nearly every man that approaches greatness tends to homosexuality, whether he admits it or not…" [5] He is also quoted as saying, "I believe the nearest I've come to perfect love was with a young coal-miner when I was about 16."

I don't know how accurate wikipedia always is but I found this interesting... It seems to fit Bertie though (the greatness part)... Bertie approaching greatness as a barrister tends towards homosexuality as Lawrence states here, though he may not know it.. seems like a very greco-roman statement to me... interesting to say the least...

I think you are right Virgil, Lawrence's understanding of homosexuality is different from modern times, but then so was Whitman's homo-eroticism in "Leaves of Grass" and to a degree Oscar Wilde's homosexuality... It is almost not homosexuality, but a lack of a definite direction either way, kind of a bisexuality maybe... I think they saw it as eroticism, sensuality could be found through either sex... but that doesn't presuppose or necessarily indicate sexuality also... and that is what is shown here... I'm sure Maurice is not gay, though he derives much pleasure from the intimacy here, but he is a sensualist you could say, by this point, having lost his sight, and does not link it to sexuality, just sensuality...

whereas Bertie I find is denying something inside him, (this is in response to your post Quark) and as it is implied women have tried to get intimate with him before and he has pushed them away, but they did not break him, they did not destroy his very identity, and I believe this is because Bertie felt no sexual or sensual appeal for them, it was easy to push them away with little consequence for himself, he was not drawn in to them, was not overpowered by them... but I believe the homosexuality is implied by the very fact that it is a man, Maurice, who Bertie is powerless to avoid intimacy with, of whatever kind, this is sensuality, but if Maurice was interested in taking that sensuality into the realm of sexuality, I don't believe Bertie could have said no... though that is completely beside the point here... Bertie seems so unable to be okay with who he is on an intimate level, but it does take a man to shatter this shell he has sheltering him from the sensual world... and it destroys him, but maybe there is something beyond that, something that would come out later, a new found acceptance of self, and maybe that is implied too, though I don't see it.. I think I see the asexual or neuter type that you mention Quark as a way homosexuality was explained away and hidden at the time... To wrap this up though, I think Virgil hit the nail on the head, when he said that our current notion of homosexuality is quite different from Lawrence's notion of it... I think Lawrence though of it as I said above more as homoeroticism and sensuality that was there to be found in men and women... but in this story Bertie can push it away with women, but though it destroys his identity is powerless against it with men...

Hey look, I was not the only one. When we first started talking about the story, the very first thing I said, was that I got the impression that he was a homoxexual.

And they all laughed at me :(

Nah, I kid, it was all in good fun.

Well, I have to say I agree with you,... and hey! what's funner then being laughed at on occasion??? Yep, nothing at all:D

Janine

03-27-2008, 04:15 PM

Ok, I don't have much time now - going out; it is a busy week. I apologise for that fact. I wish I could be more active in this discussion. I did read all of your posts. Glad to see so many in here today.

I have read a lot of 'pros and cons', in my biography books on the notion of Lawrence having homosexual encounters. So who really knows? He certainly knew many homosexuals (this is true); but then again who doesn't and especially in the literary field? He had a ton of friends and acquaintances, and he did believe in a 'perfect love' in addition to man/wife love, between a two men. It is hard to exactly interpret, what he meant by that 'perfect union of love'. If you do read "Women in Love", Islandclimber, I think you would get better insight into Lawrence's ideas on this notion/idea, especially in the scene "Gladiatorial", when Birkin(who represents Lawrence) wrestles nude with Gerald before the blazing fireplace. No one can deny that is a very sensual scene and yet it is not sexual, at least the way it is presented to the reader. Therefore, I like very much how you made that distinction with Lawrence, between 'sexual' and 'sensual'; I think that is vitally important to understand; there is a marked difference. I personally do not think Lawrence was a 'closet homosexual', nor a 'bisexual'; this is after absorbing three full biographies. I just don't see it or feel it. What you said seems to describe perfectly, how I feel about Lawrence's attitude towards the whole matter. We discussed this idea extensively in the WIL discussion and came up with the idea of a 'blood brother' or, and - the word evades me now, there is a German word for it (Virgil, help!). This perfect union with a male who would encompass total loyalty/devotion/love/closeness for a lifetime, to the male partner in a 'blood consciousness' manner still does not seem to me to be a homosexual ideal. Touching/physicality/sensuality may be a big part of this, but that is only part of the picture.

I found this on wikipedia about Lawrence...
Quote:

While writing Women in Love, Lawrence developed a sexual relationship, in the town of Tregerthen, with a Cornish farmer named William Henry Hocking.[citation needed] The affair, though brief, seems to indicate that Lawrence's fascination with themes of homosexuality related to his own sexual orientation. Indeed, in a letter written during 1913, he writes, "I should like to know why nearly every man that approaches greatness tends to homosexuality, whether he admits it or not…" [5] He is also quoted as saying, "I believe the nearest I've come to perfect love was with a young coal-miner when I was about 16."
I also tend to quote Wikipedia; and then wonder at it's accuracy. In this case, I wonder just who they are quoting. I do know the first set of facts and it seems true enough, about Henry Hocking. I have read much on that time in Lawrence life, but still have not definitively come up with the fact it was a homosexual encounter or relationship. The two broke suddenly, as well and it did not seem like a broken love affair for either of them. In the letters quoted in Wikipedia, I am leary. I only see part of the letter and I don't see what proceeds/follows those words. I don't like it when someone takes the author's words out of context. People have done that to Lawrence before, and been way off the mark and have distorted the truth of what Lawrence actually was saying. This caused him much grief and misunderstandings. Besides, when he was speaking of 'greatness' who is to say he was not talking about other great and 'genius' authors, not referring to himself? Futhermore, I don't know who that coal-miner was he referred to at age 16. At around that age, he was very close to the brother of Jesse (the model for Miriam in S&L). I know they were close and worked in the fields together; but he was not a coal miner, rather a farmer. Lawrence's first published book, "The White Peacock", also explores this close relationship with the model he used for his main male character in that book, also a farmer. This again, would be fashioned partly after Jesse's brother, who indeed Lawrence was very close to when young (probably about that age).

I don't know how accurate wikipedia always is but I found this interesting... It seems to fit Bertie though (the greatness part)... Bertie approaching greatness as a barrister tends towards homosexuality as Lawrence states here, though he may not know it.. seems like a very greco-roman statement to me... interesting to say the least...

Again, I don't know how accurate Wiki is either, or who wrote those comments. Anyone can contribute there, just like here. However, just being 'great' does not predispose one to homosexuality. Many a great barrister was heterosexual and not homosexual; so I am not sure what you are saying here. When Lawrence made that statement, if he indeed did, I would think he would be referring to artists and novelists, where homosexuality is quite common and perhaps prevalent.

I think you are right Virgil, Lawrence's understanding of homosexuality is different from modern times, but then so was Whitman's homo-eroticism in "Leaves of Grass" and to a degree Oscar Wilde's homosexuality... It is almost not homosexuality, but a lack of a definite direction either way, kind of a bisexuality maybe... I think they saw it as eroticism, sensuality could be found through either sex... but that doesn't presuppose or necessarily indicate sexuality also... and that is what is shown here... I'm sure Maurice is not gay, though he derives much pleasure from the intimacy here, but he is a sensualist you could say, by this point, having lost his sight, and does not link it to sexuality, just sensuality...

whereas Bertie I find is denying something inside him, (this is in response to your post Quark) and as it is implied women have tried to get intimate with him before and he has pushed them away, but they did not break him, they did not destroy his very identity, and I believe this is because Bertie felt no sexual or sensual appeal for them, it was easy to push them away with little consequence for himself, he was not drawn in to them, was not overpowered by them... but I believe the homosexuality is implied by the very fact that it is a man, Maurice, who Bertie is powerless to avoid intimacy with, of whatever kind, this is sensuality, but if Maurice was interested in taking that sensuality into the realm of sexuality, I don't believe Bertie could have said no... though that is completely beside the point here... Bertie seems so unable to be okay with who he is on an intimate level, but it does take a man to shatter this shell he has sheltering him from the sensual world... and it destroys him, but maybe there is something beyond that, something that would come out later, a new found acceptance of self, and maybe that is implied too, though I don't see it.. I think I see the asexual or neuter type that you mention Quark as a way homosexuality was explained away and hidden at the time... To wrap this up though, I think Virgil hit the nail on the head, when he said that our current notion of homosexuality is quite different from Lawrence's notion of it... I think Lawrence though of it as I said above more as homoeroticism and sensuality that was there to be found in men and women... but in this story Bertie can push it away with women, but though it destroys his identity is powerless against it with men...

Yes, I agree, also, with Virgil on most of what he has pointed out in response to your post, but I also like what you stated at the end of this comment of yours - yes, I can see the difference between true homosexuality and 'homoeroticism and sensuality', also - but then again I am not quite sure of the first word. It is a difficult thing to interpret in Lawrence's work.
Dark Muse, I did not laugh at you for suggesting the homosexual aspect initially; I just feel that if Bertie were homosexual, it would not make a much difference to the interpretation of the story. I think the main theme is that Bertie is 'defective', in that he cannot connect with human beings, women or men. I like what Quark pointed out in his post:

Quote by Quark:

I thought the point with Bertie is that he's incapable of intimacy with women and men. Homosexuality would clash with the characterization of him as a nervous, distant type of person because it would mean that he really does desire relationships--just not in the usual sense. The other characters look at him as asexual or neuter, and this is probably closer to the truth. Besides, if he were gay, he probably would be turned on by that last scene.

I also, considered the same effect at the end - he would maybe give into to contact with Maurice, the man, if Bertie were indeed a 'closet' homosexual and being touched intimately.

Dark Muse

03-27-2008, 04:48 PM

Dark Muse, I did not laugh at you for suggesting the homosexual aspect initially; I just feel that if Bertie were homosexual, it would not make a much difference to the interpretation of the story. I think the main theme is that Bertie is 'defective', in that he cannot connect with human beings, women or men.

Hehe oh I know, I was just messing around.

Janine

03-27-2008, 05:18 PM

Hehe oh I know, I was just messing around.

Yeah, I know - you said you were just kidding.;)

Virgil

03-27-2008, 08:48 PM

I thought the point with Bertie is that he's incapable of intimacy with women and men. Homosexuality would clash with the characterization of him as a nervous, distant type of person because it would mean that he really does desire relationships--just not in the usual sense. The other characters look at him as asexual or neuter, and this is probably closer to the truth. Besides, if he were gay, he probably would be turned on by that last scene.

Quark you are quite right. I was the one pushing Bertie's apparent homosexuality and I did so by bringing in biographical information, something Janine loves to do. :p But that is unfair ti the story. The story should be somewhat hermetically sealed from the author's bio. There is nothing in the story proper that suggests Bertie is nothing more than asexual as some have said.

Iwhereas Bertie I find is denying something inside him, (this is in response to your post Quark) and as it is implied women have tried to get intimate with him before and he has pushed them away, but they did not break him, they did not destroy his very identity, and I believe this is because Bertie felt no sexual or sensual appeal for them, it was easy to push them away with little consequence for himself, he was not drawn in to them, was not overpowered by them... but I believe the homosexuality is implied by the very fact that it is a man, Maurice, who Bertie is powerless to avoid intimacy with, of whatever kind, this is sensuality,

Except that the women who did not break Bertie did not presumably have this connection with blood consciousness. I read the story as Maurice's special connection, dramatised symbolically by his scarred eyes, with blood consciousness that is the over powering force that destroys Bertie. In the end, I think the homosexuality comes from the person Lawrence based the novel on and the association we make with the knowledge of who this character is based on.

I have read a lot of 'pros and cons', in my biography books on the notion of Lawrence having homosexual encounters. So who really knows? He certainly knew many homosexuals (this is true); but then again who doesn't and especially in the literary field? He had a ton of friends and acquaintances, and he did believe in a 'perfect love' in addition to man/wife love, between a two men. It is hard to exactly interpret, what he meant by that 'perfect union of love'. If you do read "Women in Love", Islandclimber, I think you would get better insight into Lawrence's ideas on this notion/idea, especially in the scene "Gladiatorial", when Birkin(who represents Lawrence) wrestles nude with Gerald before the blazing fireplace. No one can deny that is a very sensual scene and yet it is not sexual, at least the way it is presented to the reader. Therefore, I like very much how you made that distinction with Lawrence, between 'sexual' and 'sensual'; I think that is vitally important to understand; there is a marked difference. I personally do not think Lawrence was a 'closet homosexual', nor a 'bisexual'; this is after absorbing three full biographies. I just don't see it or feel it. What you said seems to describe perfectly, how I feel about Lawrence's attitude towards the whole matter. We discussed this idea extensively in the WIL discussion and came up with the idea of a 'blood brother' or, and - the word evades me now, there is a German word for it (Virgil, help!). This perfect union with a male who would encompass total loyalty/devotion/love/closeness for a lifetime, to the male partner in a 'blood consciousness' manner still does not seem to me to be a homosexual ideal. Touching/physicality/sensuality may be a big part of this, but that is only part of the picture.

Yes, having read a few Lawrence biographies myself (for those that don't know I did my master's thesis on Lawrence) and read much of Lawrence's works I don't think he was homosexual at all. The evidence if he were would be in his letters. He wrote over seven volumes of letters (and those are the ones that were saved and not lost) and he spilled his life in his letters. One can trace his life almost day by day in those letters. And he mentions everything. He surely would have mentioned a homosexual relationship if he had had one. I can't remember the German word either Janine, but I do remember.

Janine

03-27-2008, 10:34 PM

Quark you are quite right. I was the one pushing Bertie's apparent homosexuality and I did so by bringing in biographical information, something Janine loves to do. But that is unfair ti the story. The story should be somewhat hermetically sealed from the author's bio. There is nothing in the story proper that suggests Bertie is nothing more than asexual as some have said.

Right, but sometimes the biography will reveal true connections to certain aspects of the novels or stories, so obvious it can't be mistaken; however, with this story I have not been able to dig up a shred of evidence to indicate, that indeed, a biographical connection to Bertrum Russell had any bearing on this story. At least this is true in the books/biographies I did look into and even some of the volumes of letters. Now maybe, I will come across a reference eventually, and if I do, I will let everyone know. Had we not known about L's association with a homosexual and his friends, ( and there were many others, as well in his life), then I think we would have simply thought that Bertie just could not 'connect personally/physically' with women. This is one reason I first suggested that the name Bertie was interesting to me because young Bert (as Lawrence was called) did have a problem fully connecting with women, at an early age. However, he did not have problems connecting sexually, or then again did he? His early love affairs were not a great success and that seemed to stem from his mother's hold on him. I refer to his early years such as the woman depicted in "Sons and Lovers." I wondered if, in using this name in this story, it had some kind of symbolic meaning for Lawrence. Of course, there again, I was merely thinking out loud and conjucturing and I am probably way off track.

Except that the women who did not break Bertie did not presumably have this connection with blood consciousness. I read the story as Maurice's special connection, dramatised symbolically by his scarred eyes, with blood consciousness that is the over powering force that destroys Bertie. In the end, I think the homosexuality comes from the person Lawrence based the novel on and the association we make with the knowledge of who this character is based on.

I like the way you put that, Virgil, and referring to it as 'dramatised symbolically', using the image of the scarred eyes or eye-sockets. That certainly was a shockin moment in the story and brought much drama into our minds.

Still not sure who L did truly base this character, Bertie, on. I don't think we have true solid evidence to prove that and until we find it we can't assume it either. Perhaps I should look up Bertrum Russell in some of the books, instead of the title to this story and see if I can come up with something. I think to write this story and actually use the guy's real name might also be a little too direct and obvious if it were true. He often based characters after true life friends, acquaintances but usually the names are much different than those real life people.

Yes, having read a few Lawrence biographies myself (for those that don't know I did my master's thesis on Lawrence) and read much of Lawrence's works I don't think he was homosexual at all. The evidence if he were would be in his letters. He wrote over seven volumes of letters (and those are the ones that were saved and not lost) and he spilled his life in his letters. One can trace his life almost day by day in those letters. And he mentions everything. He surely would have mentioned a homosexual relationship if he had had one. I can't remember the German word either Janine, but I do remember.

I agree with this completely.
The German word is like Blunder-something - or the other....I will try looking in the WIL text for it, when I have the time.

Virgil

03-28-2008, 12:03 AM

Ok, let's fiannly look at that climax. Here is the text:

But he suffered as the blind man stretched out a strong, naked hand to him. Maurice accidentally knocked off Bertie's hat.

'I thought you were taller,' he said, starting. Then he laid his hand on Bertie Reid's head, closing the dome of the skull in a soft, firm grasp, gathering it, as it were; then, shifting his grasp and softly closing again, with a fine, close pressure, till he had covered the skull and the face of the smaller man, tracing the brows, and touching the full, closed eyes, touching the small nose and the nostrils, the rough, short moustache, the mouth, the rather strong chin. The hand of the blind man grasped the shoulder, the arm, the hand of the other man. He seemed to take him, in the soft, travelling grasp.

'You seem young,' he said quietly, at last.

The lawyer stood almost annihilated, unable to answer.

'Your head seems tender, as if you were young,' Maurice repeated. 'So do your hands. Touch my eyes, will you?--touch my scar.'

Now Bertie quivered with revulsion. Yet he was under the power of the blind man, as if hypnotized. He lifted his hand, and laid the fingers on the scar, on the scarred eyes. Maurice suddenly covered them with his own hand, pressed the fingers of the other man upon his disfigured eye-sockets, trembling in every fibre, and rocking slightly, slowly, from side to side. He remained thus for a minute or more, whilst Bertie stood as if in a swoon, unconscious, imprisoned.

Then suddenly Maurice removed the hand of the other man from his brow, and stood holding it in his own.

'Oh, my God' he said, 'we shall know each other now, shan't we? We shall know each other now.'

Bertie could not answer. He gazed mute and terror-struck, overcome by his own weakness. He knew he could not answer. He had an unreasonable fear, lest the other man should suddenly destroy him. Whereas Maurice was actually filled with hot, poignant love, the passion of friendship. Perhaps it was this very passion of friendship which Bertie shrank from most.

'We're all right together now, aren't we?' said Maurice. 'It's all right now, as long as we live, so far as we're concerned?'

'Yes,' said Bertie, trying by any means to escape.

Maurice stood with head lifted, as if listening. The new delicate fulfilment of mortal friendship had come as a revelation and surprise to him, something exquisite and unhoped-for. He seemed to be listening to hear if it were real.

I think many observations have already been discussed, like Bertie's anilhiation from the contact and Maurice's growth from it. One thing I want to re-emphasize is how important the sense of touch is. Not only do the two touch each other, but Maurice continues to hold on to Bertie's hand afterward. Touch for Lawrence is an important concept, an exchange of each other's vitality. This would get more fleshed out as a concept in Lady Chatterly. We've mentioned how close this comes to homosexuality, but I think Lawrence considers this male exchange a form of bond between blood brothers. Twice the word "friendship" is used. Remember it was Maurice who had difficulty in forming friendships, but now the power of touch has awakened him to the world of humanity. Notice this sentence: "The new delicate fulfilment of mortal friendship had come as a revelation and surprise to him, something exquisite and unhoped-for." Not just friendship but "mortal friendship." Lawrence is trying to stretch for a higher order concept. And the word "revelation" suggests a religious experience. I am, I must admit, a little baffeled by the next sentence: "He seemed to be listening to hear if it were real." I can understand how Lawrence links it with audible sense (it's beyond consciousness) but why question it's veracity with "if real"? That confuses me. But I think I've concluded my thoughts on ths story. Another outstanding story!